Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use

Ari Armstrong's 2008 Posts

Following are consolidated blog posts I wrote in 2008, republished here on August 13, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. Please note that I do not in every case still agree with my 2008 position. Paragraphs that begin "Reader Comment" or "Comment" are notes by readers, unless marked otherwise. Because so many of the hyperlinks have since become "dead," I removed the hyperlinks and (usually) put the original url in parenthesis. Due to minor editing and formatting changes the material here may not exactly match how it originally appeared.

This year the anti-abortion Amendment 48 was on the ballot, and I opposed that. This was also the year of the "Great Bitch-Slap Incident" involving Jon Caldara.

Major topics of the year: Christianity and conservative theocracy, atheism, Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, government-run versus free-market health care and medicine, violent Islamists and the Danish cartoons, Colorado politics, news journalism, Douglas Bruce, guns and self-defense, films, abortion and and the fetal personhood measure Amendment 48, ProgressNowAction's campaign against Jon Caldara over him using the term "bitch slap" on the radio, SNAP food benefits and my food-stamp challenge, economic "stimulus," Grand Junction Free Press articles, the elections, Obama and McCain, Amendment 43 and gay marriage, anarchy, John David Lewis, yoga, Linn Armstrong in Israel, the alcohol drinking age, immigration, prostitution, Wes Morriston on Hell, the Republican schism, regulations, affirmative action, environmentalism, Harry Potter, Barry Maggert, birth control, economics and externalities, a train derailment, wilderness ownership, Rush, Dinesh D'Souza, taxes and Amendment 59, Republican Majority for Choice, FDR and Hoover and the Great Depression, Amendment 47 and right to work, Marshall Fritz, the Independence Institute, smoking ban, Whole Foods and the FTC, and more.

Christianity Versus Liberty

January 1, 2008

Many Christians proclaim that their religion is responsible for the rise of liberty in the West. They make this claim despite the fact that Christians ruled over centuries of stifling (and sometimes murderous) oppression, despite the fact that liberty did not gain traction until the Enlightenment, an era that seriously challenged religious dogma. Today, some Christians fight to control the economy, while others fight to control our personal lives. Increasingly, these two camps are finding common cause.

In a December 30 (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2007/12/30/come_let_us_reason_together) column for the conservative Townhall.com, Ken Connor, "a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case," argues that the Christian right and the Christian left should come together. He argues that the Christian right should be more sensitive to the egalitarian left's plans to forcibly transfer wealth:

Perhaps liberal evangelicals will help remind the body of Christ that our greatest obligation is not to be financially successful or politically triumphant, but to love our Lord and our neighbor, even in public life. Perhaps they will also encourage us to develop new political solutions to the timeless problem of material poverty. As conservatives, our policy proposals probably won't include lots of major Federal programs because our experience shows that solutions rooted in the expansion of governmental bureaucracy often do more harm than good. However, we must not fall prey to the rhetoric of secular conservatives who put worldly financial concerns above all else. As Christians, we have a duty to address the needs of the poor, and it would be wrong for us to fall prey to a radically individualistic mentality. "Dog eat dog" is not a biblical phrase and "the survival of the fittest" is not a Christian concept. Our priority is the common good, with a special concern for those who have the least.

Note here that Connor finds no principled reason for the national government to refrain from forcibly transferring wealth; he thinks the activity is just fine, so long as it can be shown to do more good than harm (by what standard he does not mention). Apparently, Conner has even fewer reservations about using state and local force to transfer wealth.

Connor explicitly denounces individualism in favor of "the common good," and he associates a system of liberty, in which people interact voluntarily rather than by force and in which the rights of each individual are consistently protected, with a "dog eat dog... survival of the fittest." In other words, in his political goals and his evaluation of liberty, Connor's views are indistinguishable from those of socialists.

Connor also hopes to bring the Christian left on board with the Christian right's social agenda:

At the same time, perhaps there are ways in which we can help progressives look at things differently. ... Al Sharpton... criticized the black church for being too worried about what he called "bedroom issues": marriage and abortion. He thinks they should mobilize on social justice issues rather than be distracted by abortion. On something like this, we have an obligation to vigorously defend the unborn. Perhaps we can help progressive Christians like Al Sharpton understand that abortion is the greatest social justice issue of our time.

In other words, Connor wants to convince the left that it's a great idea to subject women and/or the doctors who serve them to criminal penalties for aborting a fertilized egg, based on the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. And this is just one example for Connor; no doubt he could think of many additional reasons to send out men with guns to arrest and imprison people.

I do not expect a quick convergence of Christian left and right. Instead, what is likely to happen is that the Christian right will become less and less interested in defending any vestige of economic liberty, while the Christian left will show less resistance to social controls. Both sides will "compromise" by allowing the other side its favored controls.

Peikoff's Fifth Podcast

January 2, 2008

Leonard Peikoff's podcasts are interesting enough that I want to alert my readers to new installments. Peikoff published his fifth podcast on December 23. Most of his comments relate to politics.

The first question may seem obscure to people unfamiliar with debates within Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand). Peikoff is working on a new book about "DIM," or Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration. Peikoff argues that Objectivism promotes the proper integration of the facts of reality. An example of disintegration is skepticism; the most common form of "misintegration"—or system building apart from reality—is religion. As an application of his work, Peikoff has argued that, today, religion is the larger threat. The question asks whether one must accept Peikoff's theory of DIM in order to be an Objectivist; Peikoff answers no.

The second question concerns the significance of political parties. Peikoff argues that, in today's mixed economy in which parties are affiliated with pressure groups, parties are "very influential." The problem that Peikoff finds with today's Republican party is that it has been promoting "medieval Christian fundamentalism." Peikoff further argues that, today, the main conflict is not the individual versus the collective, but rather reason versus religion.

For the third question, regarding Ron Paul (a Republican presidential candidate), Peikoff asked Yaron Brook for his view. Brook replied that Paul's foreign policy is essentially libertarian in that it blames America for Islamic attacks. Paul also wants to return abortion to the states rather than ensure its legality. For these reasons, Paul strikes out with Peikoff. (I agree with the analysis of Brook and Peikoff.)

Should the United States government rescue slaves who aren't American citizens? Peikoff replies that, while the U.S. government must rescue its citizens from slavery, it shouldn't try to save non-citizens. After all, the government is funded by its citizens in order to protect the rights of its citizens. However, a voluntary charity to help other slaves is fine. Peikoff argues that the best way for the U.S. government to help spread freedom around the world is to establish genuine freedom here at home.

Finally, Peikoff discusses the moral status of accepting the unearned.

My review should be considered a summary only; my purpose is merely to alert readers to some of the issues covered by Peikoff in his podcasts (which are not searchable). Please don't take my word for it—listen to Peikoff's podcast yourself.

Comment by Neil Parille: I haven't listened to the podcast, but this is a misrepresenation of Paul and libertarians. Paul, like most libertarians, thinks that US involvement in the mideast (aid to Israel, Egypt, and the Saudi kleptocracy among other things) have angered certain Moslems, resulting in some attacks on the US. Now, we can debate the truth of this (it's probably true to a small extent), but it's a far cry from blaming the US. For example, in The Ominous Parallels, Peikoff says that Franklin Roosevelt lied the U.S. into war. Even if true, that doesn't mean he blames the US or thinks Germany and Japan had no responsibility.

Health-Care "Reform"

January 3, 2008

Yesterday John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, sent out an email pointing out some of the absurdities coming out of today's health-care "reform" movement:

Exhibit A: Critics who complain that the US health care system outspends every other country and gets nothing in return and then advocate...(can it be?)...more spending! For Sen. Obama, it's $60 billion more every year. For Sens. Clinton and Edwards, it's $120 billion—more than $1,000 per year for every household in America.

Exhibit B: Critics who complain that the error rate in US hospitals is way above anything that is tolerable in any other industry and then advocate more rules and regulations that would...(surprise!)...make it more difficult for hospitals to operate like other businesses.

Exhibit C: Critics who complain that poor people have inadequate access to health care and then advocate enrolling them in health plans where...(you guessed it)...they will have even less access than they have today.

Under ordinary circumstances this would all be laughable, but in health care—hey, they might get away with it.

Goodman points to (http://cdhc.ncpa.org/commentaries/applying-the-do-no-harm-principle-to-health-policy) his article, "Applying the 'Do No Harm' Principle to Health Policy," as well as to a (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/special/pdf/health_plan112007.pdf) health plan from his organization. However, for a clear account of the problems with American health care and a principled solution rooted in liberty, I suggest (http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) the article by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'."

Voices for Liberty in Medicine

January 5, 2008

Wayne Laugesen, long a columnist for Boulder Weekly, now (http://www.gazette.com/sections/contact-us/staff/) works for Colorado Springs's Gazette as "Editorial page editor." Congratulations, Wayne! Though Wayne comes at some issues (such as abortion) from a religious perspective, usually he's a dedicated "classical liberal" who cares first about individual rights. I'll be interested to track his work at The Gazette.

Not coincidentally, yesterday The Gazette ran a substantive (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/health_31586___article.html/care_insurance.html) editorial endorsing liberty in medicine:

The Blue-Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform, appointed by legislative leaders and the governor, will present its recommendations to the Legislature on Jan. 31. ...

"The majority of the commission favors a government-heavy proposal," says Dr. Paul Hsieh, a Denver physician who has studied the new Massachusetts system. "They're crafting it similar to the Massachusetts model."

A year old, the Massachusetts system is resulting in rationing and shortages of care, and higher costs to taxpayers than originally expected. . . .

Government intervention, in fact, explains the failures of our current system. The IRS code drives most Americans to buy health insurance through employers. That means insurers don't have to compete for consumers, because for most Americans, shopping around for a better deal involves a career change. And because health insurance has been packaged as a "free" benefit from employers, patients have spent the past half-century consuming health care without challenging the price. . . .

State legislators can't change the morass of federal regulation that has led to a health care system unrestrained by the conventional market forces that control other services and goods. But legislators can improve access to health care by eliminating most of the state controls that prohibit affordable coverage. . . .

Brian Schwartz... proposed to the Blue Ribbon Commission a market-based health care reform package that mostly involved deregulation. . . .

Hsieh and Schwartz have become leaders in Colorado for liberty in medicine. Hsieh wrote an article with Lin Zinser, (http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," that explains the problems with health policy and how to fix them.

And yesterday Schwartz also had a (http://dailycamera.com/news/2008/jan/04/no-headline---04elet/) letter published in Boulder's Daily Camera:

...[W]e don't have a free market in medical care or insurance. ...Tax-exempt employer-provided insurance coddles insurers by tying us to our employer's plans. Insurers are committed to satisfying customers, which are employers, not you. Hence, they can afford to be stingy and deceptive: they know that losing your premium dollars requires that you change jobs.

What "powerful and wealthy forces" oppose changing this? Labor unions. . . . [T]he AFL-CIO supports "single payer health care": politically controlled medicine with government as a monopolistic insurer. This is even worse than buying it through your employer. If you don't like what the government "health barons" offer, it's not enough to change jobs, you must move out of state to change providers.

If you like "single payer," don't worry that the 208 Commission on Healthcare Reform has not recommended it. They recommend an "individual mandate," which makes it a crime not to purchase politician-approved "insurance." Such compulsory insurance is essentially single-payer in disguise. Strict regulations on legal insurance plans severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.

Colorado was supposed to be one of the national testing grounds for socialized medicine. Now, thanks to the work of people like Laugesen, Hsieh, Zinser, and Schwartz, the idea that we need more liberty in medicine, rather than more political controls, has become part of the public debate. While we still face a real and serious threat of more political interference in medicine, at least now liberty has a fighting chance.

Murder for Allah?

January 6, 2008

My wife has been reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel for some weeks; she says she can take the book only in small doses because it describes such horrible circumstances, at least in its first sections. That women suffer terrible abuses throughout much of the Muslim world is no secret. Now it seems likely that such abuse has arisen in Texas. Here's the (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320487,00.html) story from Fox News:

Slain Teen Girls' Brother Begs for Suspect Father to Turn Himself In
Saturday, January 05, 2008

As the family of two teenage Texas girls allegedly shot by their father and left to die in his taxi prepared to bury them, their brother issued a plea to his father.

"I just hope he turns himself in because, you know, he messed up the whole family," Islam Said, 19, told MyFOXDFW.com after his sisters were found dead Tuesday night.

Said said his father, Yaser Abdel Said, 50, of Lewisville, Texas, was having a very hard time when his daughters, Sarah Yaser Said, 17, and Amina Yaser Said, 18, started dating.

Connie Moggio, the girls' aunt, said there had been turbulence in the Said household for a while.

She said her sister married Yaser Abdel Said at the age of 15 and was pregnant shortly after, adding she had tried to leave her husband many times over the years, most recently, on Christmas Eve.

"A few days before she called me at my job and told me she was leaving because he had threatened the girls because they were dating," Moggio told MyFOXDFW.com. ...

A local Austin imam condemned the murders on [an internet] tribute page...

The victims' brother made a statement at the vigil that the deaths have nothing to do with religion. ...

Brigitte Gabriel, author of "Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America," said the shootings point to an "honor killing."

"This crime has honor killing written all over it," Gabriel said. "The father was insulted and ashamed of how his daughters were behaving."

The daughters were bringing shame to Islam and the father took it upon himself to respond, Gabriel said.

"The father probably was seeing that this is going to bring shame on the family and he needed to eliminate that shame," Gabriel said.

The report is preliminary in nature. However, accounts abound about so-called "honor killings," genital mutilation, physical disfigurement, legal barbarism, and overwhelming oppression of women throughout the Muslim world. Every civilized person must condemn such horrors and demand that they be stopped. In a rational world, dating, having consensual sex prior to marriage, driving, traveling alone, and dressing in Western attire are not criminal offenses, much less offenses punished by physical damage or death.

Here is one of the many horrors to which Ali was subjected:

[Grandma] caught hold of me and gripped my upper body... Two other women held my legs apart. The man... picked up a pair of scissors. With the other hand, he caught hold of the place between my legs and started tweaking it... Then the scissors went down between my legs and the man cut off my inner labia and clitoris. I heard it, like a butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat. A piercing pain shot up between my legs, indescribable, and I howled. Then came the sewing: the long, blunt needle clumsily pushed into my bleeding outer labia, my loud and anguished protests, Grandma's words of comfort and encouragement. . . . I must have fallen asleep, for it wasn't until much later that day that I realized that my legs had been tied together, to prevent me from moving to facilitate the formation of a scar. It was dark and my bladder was bursting, but it hurt too much to pee. The sharp pain was still there, and my legs were covered in blood. I was sweating and shivering. It wasn't until the next day that my Grandma could persuade me to pee even a little. By then everything hurt. When I just lay still the pain throbbed miserably, but when I urinated the flash of pain was as sharp as when I had been cut. (pages 32–33)

If atrocities against women "have nothing to do with religion," then why does much of the Muslim world continue to allow them?

[June 10, 2025: Of course many Muslims do reject such violence and promote a relatively enlightened form of their religion.]

Comment by Ellen R. Sheeley: Ari, dishonor killings pre-date Islam by centuries. They have more to do with culture than with faith. I have little doubt the beautiful Said sisters of suburban Dallas were killed for supposed honor. I have been exposed to many of these crimes, and there are distinct patterns. Ellen R. Sheeley, Author, "Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

Peikoff's Sixth Podcast

January 8, 2008

Yesterday Leonard Peikoff released his sixth podcast, in which he answers questions about Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. This time, he took on four main questions. (Again, my summaries are no substitute for the content of Peikoff's comments.)

1. Should one hesitate to become a writer of fiction, if one believes that one could never match the quality of Rand's novels? Peikoff answers that relying on such a "comparative standard" is a "complete error." Instead, if you love the work of some particular field, and if you can produce work of value in that field, you should go for it.

2. Would an isolationist foreign policy with respect to the Middle East make us safer? Peikoff notes that political isolation can work only between regions that are both non-aggressive. Once one side initiates aggression, isolationism is unworkable. Peikoff adds that, in the case of Islamic terrorists, the notion that a United States military presence in the Middle East somehow provoked the attacks is a only a rationalization; the real motive of Islamic terrorists is "hatred of the West."

3. Can one act without an emotional impetus? Peikoff believes not. Every act must be motivated by some "value commitment."

4. Are internet discussions about Objectivism fruitful? Peikoff answers that, while they can be, often they lack philosophical context and rigor. Speaking from my own experience, I look back with embarrassment on much that I wrote "about" Objectivism years ago when I knew very little about it; much of what I wrote was complete nonsense. Readers unfamiliar with Objectivism, then, should bear in mind that many internet forums may radically misrepresent Ayn Rand's ideas, and this can be true of comments coming from detractors as well as (nominal) supporters of those ideas.

I'm really enjoying these podcasts, and I hope that my brief summaries help to point others to them.

Comment by Clay: [If you don't mind my asking, how are you finding out so quickly that the podcasts are going up? I'm using changedetection.com to deal with the fact that Dr. Peikoff's website is. . . well. . . antiquated. What method are you using to get updated so quickly?

Ari Replies: There's no big secret; I'll check the web page myself every so often, or somebody I know will send me an e-mail notifying me of updates. But now you don't have to worry about it (assuming you read my blog), because I plan to link to new podcasts.

Comment by Clay: well now I have two ways to find out. changedetection.com is very handy for getting update info on non-RSS sites. I really wish Dr. Peikoff's site had an rss feed. considering so much of what goes on the front page is short, such as Q&A stuff (and the podcast of course), RSS would suit his site really well.

Green Death

January 8, 2008

We are again reminded that one person's reductio ad absurdum is another's (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/27/green.coffins.ap/index.html) logical conclusion:

updated 10:49 a.m. EST, Thu December 27, 2007

'Green funerals' feature biodegradable coffins

PORTLAND, Oregon (AP)—Cynthia Beal wants to be an Oregon cherry tree after she dies. She has everything to make it happen—a body, a burial site and a biodegradable coffin.

"It is composting at its best," said Beal, owner of The Natural Burial Company, which will sell a variety of eco-friendly burial products when it opens in January, including the Ecopod, a kayak-shaped coffin made out of recycled newspapers.

Biodegradable coffins are part of a larger trend toward "natural" burials, which require no formaldehyde embalming, cement vaults, chemical lawn treatments or laminated caskets. Advocates say such burials are less damaging to the environment.

Cremation was long considered more environmentally friendly than burials in graveyards, but its use of fossil fuels has raised concerns. ...

Biodegradable containers cost from around $100 for a basic cardboard box up to more than $3,000 for a handcrafted, hand-painted model.

As Monica Hughes pointed out in an e-mail, why "waste" resources by using any sort of container? Wouldn't it be better to repeal the laws requiring them? I mean, $100 worth of cardboard—do we really want to meet our deaths bearing that kind of guilt? Instead of recycling newspaper—a process that requires (gasp!) energy—shouldn't we demand that the newspaper not be produced in the first place?

But, assuming that we must be buried in a box, here's a thought: why doesn't the national government force car makers to sell the green coffins along with the new fuel-economy death cars?

Yaron Brook on Health Policy

January 9, 2008

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote an outstanding (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/01/08/health-republican-plans-oped-cx_ybr_0108health.html) article for yesterday's Forbes.com on health policy. One of the points he makes is that Republicans too have promoted political control of medicine:

...Republicans have been responsible for major expansions of government health care programs: As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney oversaw the enactment of the nation's first "universal coverage" plan, initially estimated at $1.5 billion per year but already overrunning cost projections. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who pledged not to raise any new taxes, has just pushed through his own "universal coverage" measure, projected to cost Californians more than $14 billion. And President Bush's colossal prescription drug entitlement--expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.2 trillion over the next decade--was the largest expansion of government control over health care in 40 years.

Brook briefly reviews the rise of political controls of medicine that have created today's problems, then he outlines the proper approach rooted in individual rights.

Ref. C Costs Keep Rising

January 9, 2008

Referendum C is the net tax hike passed in Colorado in 2005. For background, see my "Referendum C Central."

In Colorado, tax dollars collected in excess of what may be legally spent must be returned to the taxpayers, under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. But Referendum C allowed the state government to keep all of the excess dollars for several years, regardless of the amount. (That is why I call it a net tax hike.) The amount has risen dramatically, as The Pueblo Chieftain recently (http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1198670401/1) pointed out:

When it was pitched to voters, supporters of the measure initially said it would raise an additional $3 billion over five years—then the figure quickly was raised to $3.75 billion.

We believed the figure would be closer to $7 billion, based on the additional bounty the federal Treasury was bringing in as a result of the economic boost from the Bush tax rate cuts. But we were being too conservative.

Last week the office of Gov. Bill Ritter released its quarterly economic and revenue forecast. That document admitted that our prediction was closer to the truth.

So now we will go boldly where no one has gone before and predict that Ref C will result in an increase in state revenues of $10 billion over the five-year period.

The exact figure will not be known till after the fact, but obviously it will be billions of dollars more than Referendum C's supporters originally predicted.

Dave Kopel writes about this for the recently created (http://taxpayers.wordpress.com/) Colorado Union of Taxpayers Weblog. Kopel (http://taxpayers.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/referendum-c-revenue-will-be-10-billion-insatiable-spenders-say-not-enough/) argues:

Although the ref C advocates dishonestly described ref C as as "temporary" "five-year" "time-out" from the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, the effect of ref C will be a permanent increase in state government taxing and spending levels allowed under the state Constitution. And yet, $10 billion extra dollars, over five years, plus billions and billions more in perpetuity, is not enough for the tax consumer lobby, which is gearing up to push another tax increase on the 2008 ballot.

It's not clear exactly when or how the tax-hikers will make their move, but they obviously want to figure out a way to take even more of other people's money by force. Apparently, to them the refrain, "just a few billion more," never gets old.

Ron Paul for President, RIP

January 10, 2008

I was looking up Radley Balko's comments on a drug-war raid, when I came across (http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/08/ron-paul-2/) this post about Ron Paul, which links to (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca) this article from The New Republic. I do not doubt that Paul deeply regrets the comments in his old newsletters condemning Martin Luther King, Jr., and tolerating David Duke, whether Paul himself wrote those words or not, but, regardless of Paul's sincerity of repentance, his campaign for president is dead (even though few people ever seriously expected him to win). The great tragedy is that Paul is very often right about issues involving economics and civil liberties, and unfortunately the revelations will undermine his efforts to promote those ideas.

Comment by Severin: He knew these were out there as it has came up before. I think he made some tactical mistakes in not heading this off early. He also has let himself getting backed into a corner that paints him as a racist. He spent 10 minutes talking to Tim Russert about how bad Abe Lincoln was. He ran an anti-immigration ad that would have made Tom Tancredo proud. Then after that the media made the newsletter a big story and it will be hard for him to defend himself after his civil war rants and his hard hitting anti-immigration ad.

Comment by Joe at Forces: "The great tragedy is that Paul is very often right about issues involving economics." A stopped clock is "right" twice a day—but its still completely useless.

Drug-War Insanity

January 10, 2008

Speaking of insanity, here's the latest news about the drug war from an e-mail from (http://stopthedrugwar.org/) DRCNet:

One would think after Atlanta police killed 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, that they would get the idea, but they haven't, and the carnage continues. Last Friday, 1/4/08, a SWAT team, serving an ordinary drug search warrant, invaded the Ohio home of Tarika Wilson—an innocent woman—shot and killed her, and shot her one-year-old son. "They went in that home shooting," her mother said at a vigil that night. The boy lost at least one of his fingers. Two dogs were shot too.

Radley Balko, who tracks such abuses, has more about the raid in a (http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/06/lima-ohio-drug-raid-gone-bad/) first, (http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/06/more-on-the-lima-drug-raid/) second, and (http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/08/more-from-lima/) third post. Here's a quote from Balko's third post:

Lima police and city officials are bunkering down, as almost always happens in these cases. We do now know that Tarika Wilson and her son were shot on the second floor, after police had taken her boyfriend Anthony Terry—the man they were after—into custody. Police still haven't said what quantity of drugs they found, nor have they mentioned whether Wilson or Terry fired a weapon.

Even assuming the worst about the victims, the police in this case were totally out of control. Why do we continue to let this happen, here, in America?

Religious Insanity

January 10, 2008

Many religious people are quite rational, and they interpret their religious beliefs through the lens of worldly common sense. However, sometimes religion becomes crazy. I mean, brutally torturing people to death over slight doctrinal differences? Hanging "witches" because of absurd accusations and inconsequential physical marks? (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/murder-for-allah.html) Fathers murdering their own daughters because they are dating, and grandmothers holding down their granddaughters so that butchers can tear the clitorises out of the little girls? Religion certainly has its dark faces.

Yesterday I came across two examples of religion gone mad. At least they do not involve the sort of violence against others mentioned above. But they do indicate that religious beliefs can turn crazy.

The first example involves a man who is probably clinically insane, so perhaps religious beliefs were not the main problem here; perhaps otherwise his insanity would have manifest itself differently. Here's the story [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/09/idaho-man-sees-mark-beast-cuts-and-microwaves-hand/]:

Idaho man sees 'mark of the beast,' cuts off and microwaves hand

Associated Press

Updated 02:18 p.m., January 9, 2008

HAYDEN, Idaho—A man who believed he bore the "mark of the beast" used a circular saw to cut off one hand, then he cooked it in the microwave and called 911, authorities said.

The man, in his mid-20s, was calm when Kootenai County sheriff's deputies arrived Saturday in this northern Idaho town. He was in protective custody in the mental health unit of Kootenai Medical Center. ...

The article speculates that the man may have been inspired by the New Testament books of Revelation or Matthew. I don't want to make too much of this example, because, again, the guy is probably quite insane for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. However, I would point out that plenty of other people have done quite crazy things (such as kill themselves) based on religious beliefs involving the Apocalypse. At a certain point, it becomes difficult to distinguish between clinical insanity and self-induced religious insanity.

At any rate, the second example definitely involves only religious beliefs, not any sort of physiologically induced break with reality. World Net Daily has published an (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59488) article that advertises "WND's elite monthly Whistleblower magazine."

Whistleblower's lead article, we are told, is "Witchcraft in America:"

What is witchcraft? Is it the same as Wicca? Is it a form of Satan worship, as critics allege? Or can witches be good? Can they really cast spells that somehow call forth the spirits beyond the world of nature to help them accomplish their will—whether good or evil? Is magic real? Why do witches often perform their ceremonies naked? And most of all, why do so many people today aspire to be witches?

Okay—does anyone in modern America, in which we are learning about the article via an expansive network of computers and power generation, actually need to read an article to learn whether witches "somehow call forth the spirits beyond the world of nature?" I mean, is this now somehow open to debate? (I keep thinking that the whole thing must be a practical joke, and I'd be relieved to discover that it is, but unfortunately it seems to be sincere.)

Oh boy:

"Witchcraft, sorcery, magic and idol worship have been around since the earliest days of man," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "They do, indeed, pre-date Christianity as we know it today—just as their practitioners like to point out with pride. But they do not pre-date the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—the one who created the universe. They are, in fact, part of a rebellion against Him and His laws."

It's difficult to pick the most ridiculous line from the article, but here's my selection:

"Top exorcist condemns 'Harry Potter'"—on the Vatican's top experts who says there's "no doubt the signature of the Prince of Darkness is in these books”

This is where I'd again usually be thinking, "Joke, right?" I mean, somebody's trying to screw with me, surely. And yet I recorded the following line from the documentary Jesus Camp, quoting a woman "teaching" young children:

"And while I'm on the subject, let me say something about Harry Potter. [Dramatic pause...] Warlocks are enemies of God. And I don't care what kind of hero the are, they're an enemy of God. And had it been in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death." [In the background, somebody says, "Amen," as the audience bursts into applause.] "You don't make heroes out of warlocks."

So apparently, real people, people who have grown up in America, the most technologically advanced nation in world history, actually believe that J.K. Rowling, a writer of children's stories, is in league with a supernatural force of evil. That is insane.

Comment by Mike N.: These Jesus Camp fanatics are definately not rational. Even though any given individual of this ilk may never harm another person directly, they are very dangerous people nonetheless because they will support and advocate policies and actions that will lead to the death of many innocents.

New year's Resolutions for the Legislature

January 11, 2008

[New year's resolutions for the Legislature

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The following article was originally published by Grand Junction Free Press on January 7, 2008.

Unfortunately, if legislators articulated their New Year's resolutions, some of them would go like this: "Pander to special-interest groups," "Tax the disorganized masses in order to reward the politically powerful," "Talk about freedom while increasing state power," and "Figure out how to spin my opponent's record so that I can win votes without having to debate the real issues."

If most legislators were not allergic to principles of liberty, we would suggest resolutions such as the following: dramatically reduce the level of state spending so that individuals can decide how to spend the money they earn, repeal the property-rights violation known as the smoking ban, and eliminate corporate welfare.

But we know that such "radical," "extreme" positions would never gain a hearing in the modern Capitol, where the only "principle" is that no principles are allowed. Therefore, we will offer a set of milder resolutions that even this year's legislature might consider.

1. Help restore freedom in medicine. Even though decades of political controls have wreaked havoc with health care in America, many of today's "reformers" call for even more political controls. Legislators should resist such demands. To address the problems in health care, legislators should not raise taxes, impose more controls on doctors or insurance companies, or force people to buy politically-approved insurance. Such measures will only make matters worse.

Instead, the legislature should do what it can to restore liberty in medicine, so that doctors, insurance companies, and patients can interact voluntarily to find solutions that work. The state imposes a variety of mandates that force up insurance costs; the legislature should repeal those. However, many of the most important reforms, such as fixing the tax distortions that drive up costs, must be made at the federal level. While the Colorado legislature cannot fix federal problems, at least it can resist "reforms" that would make those problems worse. It could also pass a resolution calling for the repeal of national controls.

To learn more about the causes of modern problems in health care, and how those problems can be solved, read "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," by Coloradans Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, available at TheObjectiveStandard.com.

2. Fight the expansion of the Nanny State. For now, we seem to be stuck with the rights-violating smoking ban. But at least the Democrats have mostly shied away from trying to push more controls on peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. We know that some Democrats sincerely want to put the screws to honest gun owners, but they are holding back for political reasons. Whatever their reasons, we hope that the Democratic leadership continues to resist the siren song of the victim-disarmament lobby.

It looks like some Democrats might actually try to roll back the Nanny State where alcohol laws are concerned. In Colorado, we still can't legally purchase alcoholic beverages at liquor stores on Sundays, which is ridiculous. Nor can grocery stores sell anything other than 3.2 beer. We call on the legislature to repeal those restrictions. Consumers and sellers have a right to conduct business on terms to which they agree, rather than terms forced on them by politicians.

3. Keep tax spending under control. The left is great at talking "on message," and already we are hearing calls to "fix" the state's Constitution. State Senator Bernie Buescher has joined this crowd, according to The Denver Post. Yet, as Douglas Bruce told the Post, "This is all a big smoke screen to go after the [Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] amendment... The way they want to fix the TABOR amendment is the way a veterinarian would fix your pet. They want to neuter it." This despite the fact that we're still paying for the multi-billion dollar net tax increase of Referendum C.

The problem, says the Post, is a set of "provisions limiting taxes and mandating spending." We're all for repealing provisions that mandate spending, such as Amendment 23, which automatically increases the flow of tax dollars to government-run schools. The only reason that the spending limits are a problem is that politicians can't get enough of other people's money. The lesson that politicians constantly forget is that people are able to spend their own money wisely, thank you very much. At least for most of the state's budget, political spending forcibly takes money from some people in order to give the money to others.

We also suggest a broader resolution: protect individual rights. We have the right to control our own bodies and property, so long as we don't interfere with the equal rights of others. We have the right to spend our income as we see fit. The sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights. With every vote, legislators should think about whether they are about to violate or protect individual rights.

Even legislators have been known to do the right thing.

Hillman Praises Groff

January 12, 2008

This week, Peter Groff became the first black president of Colorado's Senate. I don't know him personally (though I've met him), yet everything I know about him suggests that he's a first-rate gentleman. Mark Hillman, who worked with Groff, speaks highly of him. Even though Hillman lost his last political race, he has kept up his political involvement through regular commentary. Hillman has (http://markhillman.com/2008/01/10/groffs-leadership-can-be-more-than-symbolic/) this to say about Groff:

For three years, Groff and I served together in the Colorado Senate. We stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but his integrity, his well-considered principles and his unapologetic advocacy of those principles set him apart from even many of the most respected legislators.

Hillman recalls some of Groff's words:

"We've created cultures that run counter to the legacy of Dr. [Martin Luther] King," he said. "Cultures of death, disrespect, division and materialism; cultures resulting in a self-imposed genocide, where we are killing each other at an alarming rate, where you receive street credit for being shot and no credit for graduating from the finest universities in this country; a culture that embraces and glorifies mediocrity and anti-intellectualism."

Instead, he champions "a culture of hope and hard work" and "a culture of excellence," knowing that without these so many of his constituents will be enslaved in cycles of poverty, crime and dependency.

A culture of hope, hard work, and excellence. For all of us. Amen. I would add that, to maintain those values, we need also a culture of liberty, in which the rights of every individual are consistently protected.

"Cost Shifting" in Medicine

January 14, 2008

Why do we supposedly need to socialize medicine? Here's (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7908096) the answer, according to one Colorado "reformer:"

Health care reform could span years
Lawmakers will begin to lay out a plan based on five proposals from a state panel, but a major package is unlikely this year.
By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/08/2008 12:38:14 AM MST

Convincing voters to foot the bill for massive health care reform is a huge challenge.

For starters, 92 percent of voters are insured, said Rep. Anne McGihon, a Denver Democrat who chairs the House health committee.

Why would they support a tax increase to give poorer Coloradans health coverage? Lawmakers point to this statistic: Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance. . . .

The first reply to the reporter's claim is that her figures seem to be way off. As Brian Schwartz comments beneath the article:

TAX US $400 TO SAVE $100? . . .

This figure [of $950] conflicts with the "Baseline Coverage and Spending" report* at the 208 Commission's website, which shows this cost to be less than $100.

The Commission's proposed $1.1 billion annual tax increase would force everyone to buy politically-defined insurance. Since 2.8 million Coloradans have private insurance, the tax would cost each privately-insured Coloradan about $400—to save $100?

Out of the $1.4 billion annual medical spending for the uninsured, the uninsured themselves pay 45% out-of-pocket. Private philanthropy, workers compensation, and veterans benefits account for another 23%. Public programs, which taxpayers already are forced to fund, account for 15% of medical costs for the uninsured. Only the remaining 17% ($239 million)—categorized as "free from provider"—can directly contribute to higher premiums. That's less than $100 per insured Coloradan. ...

208 Commission report at: (http://www.tinyurl.com/yuqkk8) www.tinyurl.com/yuqkk8

Brian Schwartz, (http://www.wakalix.com/) www.wakalix.com

Posted by Brian Schwartz (aka wakalix)
at 10:14 PM on Tuesday Jan 8

In other words, the socializers' "solution" to "cost shifting" is to massively expand cost shifting.

But the fundamental question is, why are hospitals forced to give people "free" care? After all, people who need food or clothes can't show up at the grocery store or the mall and demand free stuff. Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, explain the history in their (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) article, "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care':"

One reason for the overcrowding and overuse of ERs is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA). This law requires that hospitals that accept Medicare patients diagnose and treat anyone who comes within two hundred feet of an emergency room, regardless of whether the person can pay for the treatment. The effect of this law is that anyone can walk into an emergency room at any time and receive treatment—without concern for payment.

That law should be repealed. Those who need medical care and cannot afford it should rely on payment plans or voluntary charity, whether provided by treatment centers or individual donors.

However, the "cost shifting" resulting from forced care is only a minor part of the problem; socializers use it as a pretext to deflect the debate away from the broader issues. A larger problem is the "cost shifting" that results from underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid. But the biggest problem is not "cost shifting" at all—it is the transformation of insurance to pre-paid, tax-favored medical care, which results in more use without regard for cost and thus ever-higher costs. And that is precisely the problem that any of the schemes to expand political power over medicine would exacerbate—to then be "solved" through political price-fixing and rationing.

Schwartz on Health Mandates

January 14, 2008

Brian Schwartz wrote an (http://tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010708B) article titled, "The Collective Punishment Model," for today's TCS Daily:

Politicians peddle compulsory insurance under the guise of "(http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/growing_support_shared_and_personal_responsibility_health_care) personal responsibility." The story is that the uninsured receive medical care without paying for it. Their freeloading passes costs onto the insured, which increases premium costs. Compulsory insurance, say its supporters, can remedy this problem by forcing both the insured and uninsured to purchase medical insurance—as defined by politicians.

Schwartz offers three basic replies to this rationale for mandated insurance. "First, freeloading from the uninsured does not significantly increase insurance premiums." However, the various proposals to impose more political controls on medicine would cost far more.

Second, holding people responsible would mean punishing freeloaders themselves and allowing providers to prevent customers from skipping out on the bill. This is the exact opposite of compulsory insurance, which forces the innocent to purchase insurance policies determined by political interests, rather than their own needs.

I would point out here that, in a voluntary system, such "freeloaders" often would receive charity, either from health-care providers or from independent donors.

"Third, government controls already punish the innocent—insured and uninsured alike—by making medical care and insurance prohibitively expensive."

The biggest reason that some people lack health insurance is that political controls have dramatically increased the costs of health insurance. Now, because of the harm caused by those political controls, some "reformers" wish to impose still more political controls.

Representative Douglas Bruce

January 15, 2008

I was not bothered by Douglas Bruce's delay in assuming his office; with the delay, Bruce is eligible for another term. Though some Democrats whined that he was "gaming the system," the Democrats are the ones who fought for the existing rules. But I figured that Bruce would count his blessings and save his vitriol for the issues that matter.

Unfortunately, Bruce got into a spat with House Speaker Andrew Romanoff over the timing of Bruce's swearing-in. Of all the conceivable issues for Bruce to contest, surely this was among the least important. As the Rocky Mountain News reported earlier today [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/14/bruce-kicks-photographer/], even the Republicans tired of Bruce's tactics: Bruce "faced a 22-1 vote by the Republican Caucus to push for replacement of the appointed representative if he didn't take the oath by day's end." Bruce gave in.

Yet, before he took his oath, Bruce inexplicably grew angry with a photographer for—get this—taking photographs, and Bruce kicked the poor guy. A video recording of the kick is (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/videos/detail/bruces-kick-tape/) presented here. Bruce has a reputation as a jerk; everybody knows that. But didn't he realize that kicking a photographer is out of bounds? Here's the excuse (as reported by the Rocky):

Asked by reporters in his office about the incident, Bruce said his kick was warranted and that he had warned the photographers not to take his picture during the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance.

"In 21 years, I don't think there has ever been an instance where I had to do something to stop somebody from behaving in such a coarse and disgusting way," Bruce said.

Arguably, such a kick could be construed as criminal assault, though obviously I think that would be taking matters way too far. But doesn't the First Amendment apply in Colorado's Capitol? The idea that there's something wrong with taking photographs during a prayer at a political event is just silly. Yet regardless of whether such photographs are appropriate, doesn't the journalist have the right to make that call?

Bruce could be a strong voice for economic liberty in the state legislature, but he seems intent on squandering his political capital on foolishness.

Tax Cutting for God

January 15, 2008

Perhaps I was being too optimistic. Earlier today I said that, if he had his act together, Douglas "Bruce could be a strong voice for economic liberty in the state legislature." But then I remembered (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3020950) this line from The Denver Post:

The bottom line to explain Bruce's success [with the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights] is that he would not be deterred.

He refused to give up, and he continues to fight because he believes the tax-and-spend-limit cause has an even higher calling than letting taxpayers keep their money.

"Why did I persist after two losses?" Bruce wrote in an e-mail after being interviewed for this story. "(Why do I now persist after 13 years of retribution, jailing, court intimidation, scores of bogus property citations, seizure of real property and vehicle, public attack and scorn, phony fines, etc. etc.?)

"Because I believe God wants us to be free."

That's it? That's his answer? As many evangelicals are discovering [dead link: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/01/huck-army.html], apparently God wants higher taxes. I don't think Bruce's claim appeals to many Christians, and it certainly does not appeal to those looking for real-world answers to political questions.

Forced Medicine and Parental Rights

January 15, 2008

Various agents of the government confront the problem of defining the line between parental rights and the protection of children from physical abuse. Agents in such cases might respond in one of four ways:

1. Not intervene when parents are within their rights.

2. Intervene to save a child from serious physical abuse and/or death.

3. Not intervene when the child suffers from serious physical abuse (that possibly results in death).

4. Intervene when parents are within their rights.

Even though the first two types are (I can only imagine) much more common, the second two types are the ones that end up in the newspapers, and that is worth bearing in mind. Nevertheless, such abuses result in serious violations of people's rights, so they rightly draw the extra attention.

On January 9, the Rocky Mountain News ran an article [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/09/man-who-blocked-treatment-son-11-claims-overreacti/] that describes a case that seems likely to fall within the fourth type of case. The author of the aricle, John Ensslin, begins:

A Garfield County man [Tom Shiflett] contends sheriff's deputies barged into his home and forcibly took his 11-year-old boy to a hospital after he refused to allow paramedics to examine a bump on the boy's head.

Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario, however, said the deputies were acting on a warrant obtained out of concern about the boy's injuries, which he said also included an ankle injury, a contusion and swelling over his eye. . . .

The incident started Thursday at the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park south of New Castle when the son, Jon Shiflett, hit his head "real hard" on the pavement after he grabbed the door handle of a moving car driven by his sister, the father said.

Someone called for an ambulance, but before paramedics arrived, Tom Shiflett said he picked his son up, brought him inside, put him on a couch and applied an ice pack to his head.

When paramedics arrived at the home, Shiflett said he let them look at his son, but refused to let them treat the youngster.

It is likely that, had a wealthy parent in a posh neighborhood, rather than somebody living a a trailer, told the paramedics to take a hike, they would have taken a hike, and the story would have ended there. But our story continues:

That led to a visit on Friday morning from two social workers. Shiflett said when he rebuffed them, they vowed to come back with a court order.

Deputies returned to serve the order later that evening. Shiflett contends he would have let them in if they said they had a warrant.

He claims they gave no such notice and barged in with a battering ram.

Shiflett said deputies temporarily handcuffed him and his wife and their oldest daughter and left with the boy.

Did this violent assault result in better care for the boy? No, it did not:

They returned the boy around 2:30 a.m. Saturday along with a doctor's note advising them to make sure the youngster drank plenty of water, that he take some ibuprofen, that an antibiotic ointment be applied as needed and that a cold compress be put on his bruises.

"This is exactly what I was doing," Shiflett said. He accused deputies of overreacting.

Did the sheriff, Lou Vallario, respond appropriately? The article reports: "Vallario also said two deputies gave the father, Tom Shiflett, 62, ample opportunity to resolve the situation peacefully before a team of officers used force to enter the home."

The sheriff had a "court order," but did he have a responsibility to force the child into treatment? A warrant grants permission to an officer; it does not compel an officer to act. The sheriff had no way of knowing the severity of the injuries. Then again, neither did he have any reason to doubt the claims of the father. Were the paramedics consulted regarding the court order? At least they saw the boy. Was the judge too hasty in issuing the order?

The article continues:

Vallario said his office has had previous confrontations with Shiflett.

In 2005, he said deputies arrested Shiflett on a charge of felony menacing after he allegedly threatened someone with an ax.

That charge was dismissed, the sheriff said, but the case was a factor in the deputies' response. Shiflett said the charge was dropped because he was acting against a man who had threatened his family at his home.

If the charges were dismissed, then the case must be assumed to be lawful self-defense. Aren't people who live in trailers also innocent until proven guilty?

Vallario also questioned why the father would not let paramedics examine the child's injuries, especially after human-services officials assured the father he would not incur any medical bills.

"Why is this guy being so uncooperative?" Vallario asked. "Where's the harm?"

However, parents—even those who live in trailers—have the right not be "cooperative" with paramedics regarding their children's health care, so long as the parents do not place their children in real physical danger. Shiflett sensibly responded: "What's the harm of letting a parent care for his own child?"

The claim that Shiflett should have released his son to "human-service officials" because Shiflett "would not incur any medical bills" is quite astounding. According to this reasoning, any time that the government creates an entitlement, that implies that government agents can force people to subject themselves to the related services. That road ends in a frightening place.

Ah, but Shiflett is an odd duck, and everybody knows that odd ducks don't have the same rights as everybody else: "Shiflett has 10 children, ranging in age from 8 to 29 years old. All but one were born at home, he said. A remodeler, Shiflett said he has had trouble finding work since he rescinded his Social Security number."

I am suggesting that the courts and the sheriff's office forcibly intervened even though Shiflett was within his rights. However, consider a hypothetical case that begins the same way: a young boy falls, somebody calls an ambulance, the father lets the paramedics look at the boy but not treat him, and social services shows up. But then the judge tells social services to mind their own business, so the sheriff never breaks into the house. How would we evaluate the case if the boy died? Then the situation would seem to fall under type three as described above.

In this case, though, the father did seem to know that the boy's injuries weren't very serious, and he provided appropriate medical treatment. The sheriff's deputies violently assaulted the family members, subjecting them to serious emotional trauma. Here in America, one's home is one's castle, and the legal authorities ought not force their way into somebody's home without a very good reason supported by tangible evidence. In this case, it seems that the social workers, the judge, and the sheriff's office got carried away without sufficient reason to act. But who cares, because Shiflett's just some oddball living in a trailer, right?

Reader Comment:

I apologize but I disagree with the underlying theme of your article. Yes I agree that in America your home is your castle, you have autonomy etc. and there should be no violation unless a serious matter arises.

However a knock to the head is a serious matter. Your view that "the father did seem to know that the boy's injuries weren't very serious, and he provided appropriate medical treatment." How were he to know?

It takes x-rays and scans to make sure there is no serious damage. There is no medical knowledge, specialist to cerebral injuries mentioned here. I have no doubt that Mr Shiflett is a fully capable first aider possibly more, who no doubt has had countless experience of minor injuries raising ten children. However we are talking about a child here.

Why are you concentrating on Mr Shiflett's rights and not his son's?

You say there were further injuries. How were the court to know this was not a case of child abuse?

Surely children's rights are paramount and we must act in their best interests.

Letter to Google

January 16, 2008

I've been fairly happy with Google's Blogger service. However, I just discovered on oddity with Google's "AdSense" program. I sent a letter to Google complaining about the problem. And, I thought, what's more appropriately ironic than using Google's Blogger service to complain about Google? Here's the letter:

Dear Google,

I was looking into using AdSense on my web pages, but I found the (https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&sourceid=aso&subid=ww-ww-et-asui&medium=link) following policy:

"Sites displaying Google ads may not include . . . advocacy against any individual, group, or organization."

According to this policy, if I wish to use AdSense, I cannot "advocate against" the KKK, a dangerous cult, or a political movement that I regard as harmful.

Most of your other restrictions make sense, but this one does not. Moreover, I suspect that the large majority of your AdSense users flagrantly violate the policy on a daily basis. However, I will not sign up for AdSense knowing that I fully intend to violate the policy as stated. If you wish to rephrase your policy so that it does not explicitly prohibit normal and responsible blogging, then I will again consider the program.

Thank you for your consideration,
Ari Armstrong

Reader Comment: Good luck. Google uses this ambiguity to enforce selectively in favor of groups it likes. Some years ago, I worked with a group of Objectivist that advocated war against state sponsors of terrorism. When Google found out what we stood for, they canceled our AdSense ads.

Reader Comment: That's too bad, Ari. Do other services have similar restrictions? Perhaps Yahoo's service (http://publisher.yahoo.com) is better. I'd be surprised if there wasn't another service that does not impose content restrictions.

"Amend the Constitution so it's in God's Standards"

January 16, 2008

Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Constitution_to_meet_Gods_0115.html) said the following on Monday:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do—to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

The commentary with the accompanying video suggests that Huckabee was talking about abortion (as in, banning it) and marriage (as in, banning gay marriage).

There was no confusion before—Huckabee is serious about imposing his religious views [see "God Wins in Iowa"] through force of politics. This latest comment only emphasizes the point. And, as Paul Hsieh recently pointed out [dead link: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/01/huck-army.html] (quoting The New York Times,) Huckabee's religious views conflict with the ideals of economic liberty. All around, he's a horrible candidate, judged by the standard of liberty.

Major Changes to AriArmstrong.com and FreeColorado.com

January 16, 2008

[September 14, 2014 Update: This post is outdated. I've imported all the content discussed here to this page.]

Henceforth, my blog at AriArmstrong.com will be dedicated to issues of religion and culture. Every topic and post will have some significant connection to religion (with the possible occasional exception of announcements regarding the blog). As my readers know, my perspective is essentially critical of religion per se (though of course I recognize valuable contributions from various religious people).

At the same time, I am converting FreeColorado.com to a blog. All of the content created prior to the blog will remain intact. Every post that I write about politics and cultural issues not directly connected to religion will appear there. The old RSS feed for FreeColorado.com will be discontinued, so readers may switch to the RSS feed connected to the new blog.

Why the changes? I've found that my blogging lacks focus. At AriArmstrong.com, I've been writing about religion, national politics, local politics, films, and so on. While some readers appreciate the range of commentary, others probably favor a narrower range. Now readers who care only about religion and its impact on culture can stick with AriArmstrong.com. Readers interested only in my political commentary can turn to FreeColorado.com. (Hopefully some readers will frequent both blogs. I hope that the hassle of reading two blogs is minimal, whereas the benefits of separating the content are substantial.) Even though religion is itself an extremely broad topic, my comments at FreeColorado.com will tend to cover an even broader range of issues. For that reason, I've decided to put any (infrequent) personal note there.

Since I started the blog at AriArmstrong.com, I haven't known quite what to do with FreeColorado.com. But it's a great domain name with nearly a decade of history behind it. However, the process of manually updating files has grown wearisome, especially when blogging is so much faster. Now FreeColorado.com will return to its original purpose: hosting commentary mostly about politics, with an emphasis on Colorado. Now, though, I'm more likely to post shorter comments along with more substantive articles, given that posting to a blog is so fast. The amount of commentary appearing at FreeColorado.com should increase substantially over recent weeks.

I plan to substantially change the look of FreeColorado.com over the coming weeks, and I may also make some updates to the design of AriArmstrong.com. Regardless of the look, I hope that readers find the content of both blogs to be interesting and considered (if often controversial).

Church Killer Writes to God

January 17, 2008

In December, my dad and I wrote about the murders at New Life Church.

The article from the Post that described the murderer's "ultra-religious home-school curriculum" (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7697827) was written by Nancy Lofholm ("Shooter's lessons strict, rule-driven," 12/12/2007).

Today The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7991187) revealed a new detail of the story:

A killer who gunned down four people last month at a church in Colorado Springs and a youth mission in Arvada wrote a letter addressed "To God" that was recovered along with other items from his car.

The letter was listed in an evidence and property invoice of items that Colorado Springs police recovered from a 1992 Toyota Camry belonging to Matthew Murray. The documents were obtained by Newsradio 850 KOA. . . .

[The killer's] car was found and seized by investigators in the New Life parking lot.

The note to God was found in the rear passenger seat, along with two books: "I Had to Say Something" by Mike Jones and "Serial Murderers and Their Victims" by Eric W. Hickey, according to the invoice.

The Jones book is an expose about his experience as a male prostitute and his sexual encounters with former New Life pastor Ted Haggard. Jones' revelations led to Haggard leaving the church. ("Church shooter left letter 'To God' in car," Kieran Nicholson, 1/17/2008)

I called (http://850koa.com/) 850 KOA, and a representative of the station said that, while the station has obtained an inventory list, it has not obtained the letter itself. I assume that the contents of the letter will be released at some point.

The fact that the murderer wrote a letter "To God" indicates that the murderer believed in God. Even if the murderer rejected the legitimate authority of God, the murderer seems to have been acting from a theistic premise, the presumption that God exists. (Whatever the letter may say about the existence of God, which we won't know until the letter's release, the fact remains that it is addressed to God.) Likewise, the Christian critic who suggested that the murders were the work of "the devil" (the line comes from a December 14 e-mail by (http://backboneamerica.net/) John Andrews) assumes a theistic perspective.

There is obviously a huge difference between rebelling against God and concluding that God does not exist.

It is also obvious that the murders had little to do with theism. Plenty of disgruntled Christians never resort to violence. On the other hand, many Christians, as well as many atheists, have committed heinous crimes. In the modern world, Christians, theists angry with God, and atheists can, whatever their differences, join together in condemning such acts of violence.

Nothing "Accidental" about Shooting

January 17, 2008

Alan Gathright wrote a story earlier today titled, "Shooting story backfires" [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/16/shooting-story-backfires/]:

At first, the 20-year-old man reported he was shot by a drive-by gunman Tuesday evening while walking with a friend near the Byers Library. ...

Now the victim admits he was accidentally shot in the back at a home when a 15-year-old buddy—showing off a handgun—placed it on a coffee table and it accidentally discharged. ...

"They were in a residence and had the gun out and the gun was put onto a table," [Arapahoe County sheriff's Capt. Mark] Fisher said. "It discharged and ended up shooting the 20-year-old in the back.

The description by the victim is obvious nonsense, and the description by the officer is misleading. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not fire themselves. If you place a gun on a table, it will not then "accidentally discharge" all on its own.

Instead, the 15-year-old "buddy" obviously violated all three of the main rules for firearm safety. First, he kept the gun loaded when he wasn't intending to use it. (Perhaps the magazine was in the semiautomatic gun, or perhaps the teen forgot or never learned that, even when the magazine is removed, a round might be left in the chamber.) Second, he pointed the gun at something that he didn't intend to shoot. Third, he probably put his finger on the trigger. My guess (assuming that the shooting actually involved a table) is that the teen discharged the gun while placing it on the table. The teen fired the gun, one way or another (again, assuming that the basic story is accurate). The shooting was no accident. It was the result of gross negligence.

[January 17 update: Of course I accept Steve D'Ippolito's statement in the comments: "Some guns are physically defective (or poorly designed) to the point where they will discharge when they get a sufficiently abrupt jolt." However, as D'Ippolito adds, somebody who tosses a loaded (and defective) gun onto a table, such that the muzzle points at a person, is still responsible for the consequences. That said, getting the full truth out of the characters involved may be impossible.]

The three main rules of gun safety can be described as the principles of "gun control:" chamber control, muzzle control, and trigger control. But apparently somebody else neglected the central principle of gun control: always keep your gun under your own control. The teen is manifestly too ignorant and negligent to handle a firearm.

Fortunately, many teens learn about gun safety and shoot responsibly and legally in the company of responsible adults.

Comment by Steve D'Ippolito: A nit (that really doesn't bear on your point): Some guns are physically defective (or poorly designed) to the point where they will discharge when they get a sufficiently abrupt jolt. Thus it isn't absolutely certain that the finger must have been on the trigger for it to have fired. With the information at hand one cannot be certain. (The article states that the gun was "placed" on the table; this may mean it was dropped a couple of inches or even casually tossed onto the table, either of which could have done the trick if the firearm was basically a P.O.S.) Nonetheless the individual in question was negligent on all other counts you have given, since he didn't follow the other rules of firearm safety. And if the gun is that unsafe that it can fire from a jolt like that, then the owner was additionally negligent in a) owning and b) carelessly bumping about such a hazard.

Rape as Punishment

January 17, 2008

I watched the film Deja Vu (starring Denzel Washington), and it's a pretty good action/drama based on a science-fiction device of time travel. I have two minor complaints about the story. First, it contains gratuitous and baffling references to religion. Second, it contains the following line, spoken by Washington's character to the central villain:

"You better have some KY; you're going to need it."

This is a not-so-subtle reference to prison rape. Where did we get to the point in our culture where rape is seen as a satisfying and socially accepted form of punishment? (Actually, the villain of the movie is so horrible that he would probably be protected from rape by maximum security, but the line references a common occurrence in America's prisons.)

Someday, some clever lawyer is going to figure out that rape (or even the high probability thereof) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Not only might that lawyer force major reforms in America's prisons, but he might bring a multi-billion dollar lawsuit on behalf of the victims.

Is it not an obvious point that rape is bad and that it should not be used as a form of punishment? Or should we also bring back torture, mutilation, and lion pits?

Bill Lindsay Blames "Market" for Ills of Political Controls

January 17, 2008

To readers of FreeColorado.com, news that Bill Lindsay, chair of Colorado's "208" Healthcare Commission, disdains and misrepresents free markets comes as no surprise.

Lindsay recently blamed "the market" for the problems caused by political force in medicine. David Montero reports for the Rocky Mountain News [dead link: href="http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/10/amendment-would-bar-colorado-from-requiring/]:

No one would be required to participate in a public or private health care plan under a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution. . . .

But Bill Lindsay, the chairman of the panel, said there was a simple reason that the politically disparate body agreed to make mandated coverage a recommendation.

"The reason is what we see in the marketplace is that the market for health insurance isn't working," Lindsay said.

He also found the idea that people would pay cash for services to be unrealistic.

"The notion that people would pay cash for services is ludicrous because of the cost of health care," he said.

However, we do not have a free market in health insurance, and that's the reason why it's so expensive. Instead, we have a system dominated by political controls. That is also the reason why health-care costs have skyrocketed.

(http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/index.html) Paul Hsieh, MD, replies in the comments:

Bill Lindsay is completely wrong that the market for health insurance isn't working. Our biggest problem is that we don't have a free market but instead a massively distorted market caused by years of ill-considered government regulations. It is precisely because of the government that people can't afford reasonable health insurance. It is not the free market has failed but the government system. Hence, the solution isn't more government, but removing the burdensome government restrictions and letting the free market actually work.

For more information about this topic, Colorado attorney Lin Zinser and I have written an article on health care history and policy entitled (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'". It has been published in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of the national journal, "The Objective Standard."

We argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. Hence the solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries.

(http://www.wakalix.com/) Brian Schwartz, Ph.D., also chimes in:

Healthcare Reform Commission chair Bill Lindsey's comments show that he either misunderstands why insurance is so expensive or deliberately misrepresents fundamental issues...

He wants to force Coloradans to buy politically-defined insurance because "the market for health insurance isn't working." But as my free-market proposal (at (http://whoownsyou.org/) WhoOwnsYou.org) to the Commission explains, it's not working because government controls have crippled it.

Federal tax policy deeply discounts employer-provided insurance. This locks us to our employer and the costly insurance plans they offer. Hence, insurance companies need not please us, as they know we must change jobs to buy a competitor's product.

Mandated benefits laws force us to buy expensive policies with benefits we may not need. For example, a widowed wife must buy a policy that covers marital therapy, prostate cancer, and maternity. In Colorado these and other controls add between 20% to over 50% to premiums.

Politically-controlled medical insurance is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

Lindsay simply refuses to consider these facts.

The Wendell Baker Story

January 17, 2008

I've been thinking about The Wendell Baker Story, off and on, since I saw it yesterday. That confirms my thoughts that the movie, which few people have heard of, might be worth a second glance. On the whole, it's not a spectacular film (it earned a 45 percent fresh (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wendell_baker_story/) rating from Rotten Tomatoes), but it shows flashes of poignancy and heart. After a slow beginning, the film introduces older characters played by Kris Kristofferson, Harry Dean Stanton, and Seymour Cassel. The relationships among these characters, and between them and the lead character of Luke Wilson, give the comedy a soul of benevolent dignity. I especially enjoyed the performance of Kristofferson. Wilson wrote the screenplay, and his brothers Owen and Andrew join the project.

Take a moment to get your mind off of that movie, because, while I'm discussing movies, I thought I'd warn readers about a repulsive, disgusting film, Year of the Dog. I regard it, along with I Heart Huckabees and The Butterfly Effect, as the three worst, most nihilistic films I've ever seen.

Douglas Bruce Faces the Music

January 17, 2008

Yet, unfortunately, he seems to be tone deaf. As I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/representative-douglas-bruce.html) reviewed, on his first day on the job as a state representative, he kicked a photographer from the Rocky Mountain News. Bruce has not, so far as I've heard, apologized for the incident. Instead, he has tried to blame the journalist and downplay his behavior.

(http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_7976974) Now Bruce faces an investigation by the state house:

(http://www.denverpost.com/newsheadlines/ci_7978019) Joint statement from House on Bruce investigation
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/15/2008 01:37:37 PM MST

Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, and House Republican Leader Mike May, R-Parker, issued the following statement today in response to the formation of a special committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident that occurred between then Rep.-elect Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, and a member of the press on the floor of the House of Representatives on Jan. 14, 2008.

"We are both deeply troubled by the incident that took place yesterday morning. We are committed to preserving order and decorum in the House of Representatives.

"We have asked the committee to collect evidence and to hear testimony and to report back to the House on or before the 25th of January. . . ."

Editorials by (http://www.denverpost.com/opinionheadlines/ci_7971179) The Denver Post, the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/15/idle-down-mr-tabor/) Rocky Mountain News, and (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/opinion/stories/2008/01/16/011708_1B_Harmon_column.html) The Daily Sentinel, and other papers have condemned Bruce's behavior. Columnists (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/15/littwin-what-a-way-to-kick-off-first-day-in-the/) Mike Littwin and (http://www.denverpost.com/greene/ci_7980949) Susan Greene have written humorous and biting criticisms of Bruce.

Bruce has become the Democrats' new best friend. What better way to promote the stereotype of Republicans as heartless jerks? If Bruce is the "father" of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, then Democrats will reply that the fruit does not fall far from the tree. That's too bad, because limiting taxes is really about expanding voluntary interaction and reducing the initiation of physical force.

Perhaps that's why one of the harshest condemnations has (http://backboneamerica.net/2008/01/15/baiting-romanoff-booting-temple/) come from conservative John Andrews:

State Rep. Douglas Bruce jerking around Speaker Andrew Romanoff before joining the House was one thing: a calculated bid for attention, rude but arguably shrewd. His putting the boot, literally, to a Rocky Mountain News photographer is something else again, however: plug-stupid with no conceivable justification.

Someone needs to tell him the ink-by-the-barrel rule of political life and public relations. Bruce's foolhardy footwork, bringing down the wrath of Rocky publisher John Temple along with a near-unanimous rebuke from his own Republican caucus, is an utter loser for the man's legislative aspirations and, worse, for the GOP conservative cause he claims to support.

Deliver us, please, from such friends. My endorsement of Bruce's candidacy for this House seat, and my congratulations to him upon winning in it, are on extreme probation and rapidly approaching termination.

What a circus!

Film: The Prize Winner of Defiance

January 18, 2008

[I was pleasantly surprised by the movie, The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/prize_winner_of_defiance_ohio/) (reviewed at Rotten Tomatoes), which I'd never heard of till I saw the video on the shelf. Based on a true story, it follows a woman living in the '50s and '60s who keeps her large family ahead of her careless husband by entering—and winning—contests that involve writing clever marketing lines. The acting of Julianne Moore as Evelyn Ryan, Woody Harrelson as the husband, and Ellary Porterfield as one of the daughters is absolutely top-notch.

The reason that I'm reviewing the film at this web page (which is after all (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/major-changes-to-ariarmstrongcom-and.html) dedicated to matters of religion) is that that religious themes run through the story. Ryan and her husband are Catholic. The husband has some major problems; in particular, he spends a large chunk of his weekly paycheck on booze, and he is prone to rage when he drinks. For example, at one point he beats on a just-won freezer with a frying pan; later, he throws food from the freezer out into the yard. Early in the movie, Ryan talks with a priest, who advises her to try harder to create a good home for her husband. Ryan doesn't seem happy with this advice, but she follows it, even though her husband deserves nothing but divorce papers.

Moreover, the film encourages viewers to pity and forgive the husband based on three facts. First, he lost the quality of his voice and thus his singing career in a car crash. Second, he feels bad that he's not the sole bread-winner of the household. Third, in his old age he takes real steps to make up for his earlier behavior. The husband is not irredeemably evil; he is merely a lout. And divorce is not easy for a woman with ten children to care for. Nevertheless, Ryan seems to stick with her husband because of Christian charity, not because he deserves the marriage.

Ryan (along with the film) confuses the issue of forgiveness (which properly must be earned) with the issue of holding true to one's values and not falling into bitterness (which may or may not involve forgiveness). Also, Ryan enjoys more good luck (in winning various prizes) than most women in her position would find (even though Ryan's success is based also on her skill with words).

The reason that I basically enjoyed the movie is that Ryan shows a powerful and positive spirit. Despite her setbacks and her husband's behavior, she consistently seeks the joy of life. She maintains a strong, loving, and supportive relationship with her children, which comes out especially in the scenes with her daughter "Tuffy," who later wrote the book on which the film is based.

Welcome Rocky Readers

January 18, 2008

Today my Speakout, "Loading the dice against responsibility: Columnist Campos' claims about racism riddled with confusions," ran in the Rocky Mountain News [dead linK: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/18/speakout-loading-the-dice-against-responsibility/]. Here are a few quotes:

Myriad economic controls, along with payroll taxes of 15 percent, make it hard for the poor to get ahead. Welfare programs have discouraged work, encouraged broken families, and displaced voluntary charity. Government-run schools and other programs often underserve the poor. . . .

[S]ome people born into chronic poverty break the cycle, earn a decent education, and rise to the middle class or beyond. They are able to do it through strength of character. At the same time, others born to advantage waste their lives. . . .

It makes a difference whether "you and I" rely on persuasion and voluntary interaction, or whether we bring to bear the force of government. I believe that it is precisely because political programs rely upon the forcible redistribution of wealth and the forcible restraint of voluntary interaction that such programs tend to miss their lofty aims.

If you're viewing this web page for the first time based on the reference in the News, this page is dedicated primarily to covering Colorado politics from a perspective of individual rights and free markets. I just recently converted the page to a blog format; feel free to check out the (http://www.freecolorado.com/firstdecade.htm) archived articles. I've also dedicated my blog at (http://ariarmstrong.com/) AriArmstrong.com to issues involving religion (from a perspective critical of religion). My plan is to add comments to both web pages nearly every day, so I hope you'll consider returning.

Colorado Politics, Blogging, and Ads with Google and Yahoo

January 18, 2008

Readers of this web page can expect updates about Colorado politics nearly every day.

In my >announcement regarding the major reorganization of this web page as a blog, I wrote that FreeColorado.com will host "commentary mostly about politics, with an emphasis on Colorado." However, I added, the page "will tend to cover [a broad] range of issues" including "(infrequent) personal" notes.

However, a comment at BlogAds convinced me that I should always lead with Colorado politics:

Blogs without a laser-sharp focus on one topic or community AND an audience of 1000 readers a day usually do not attract advertisers. But some blogs with a sharp focus AND an audience of thousands a day do NOT get advertisers. One test: have more than a handful of companies expressed an interest in advertising on your blog?

I'm still going to post comments about national politics, cultural matters not directly related to politics, and an occasional note about my blog or activities. However, in the interest of sharpening the focus (if not to "laser-sharp" specifications), I decided to make sure that I post something about Colorado politics every day. (My main goal is not to attract possible advertisers, but to create an interesting web page that readers appreciate.) Note that most political issues involving Colorado also have national implications, so I do hope to attract some readers nationally. (Also note that occasionally I'll take a day off.)

Now to the secondary topic. I was checking out policies for blog ads after noticing the quite bizarre written policies of Google's AdSense program. Here's the most objectionable restriction: "Sites displaying Google ads may not include . . . advocacy against any individual, group, or organization." I wrote, "I suspect that the large majority of your AdSense users flagrantly violate the policy on a daily basis."

One reader suggested that I check into Yahoo's ad program. The policies of Yahoo are even worse. Yahoo's (http://publisher.yahoo.com/sell/FAQs.php?loc=USYPN0005) policies claim, "We will not show results on pages that contain problematic content, including but not limited to . . . material that advocates against any individual or group."

The top definition of "advocate" as (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate) provided by Dictionary.com, is "to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly." To "advocate against" something, then, is to speak or write against it and encourage others not to support it.

(As I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/religious-motivation-reply-to-jamelle.html) mentioned, I discourage the use of such constructions as "advocate for," "advocate on," and "advocate against.")

According to the explicit policies of the ad services by Google and Yahoo, then, people who run ads from those sources are forbidden from making comments such as the following:

* "The KKK is a horrible, morally evil organization that people should shun."

* "Don't vote for Candidate X."
* "Don't buy Product X, because it doesn't work very well."

* "Douglas Bruce was wrong to kick a photographer."

* "Store X charges too much for many of its products."

* "Neo-Nazis are morally despicable."

* "The ad policies of Google and Yahoo are ridiculous."

* "Corrupt Politician X should be ejected from office."

* "Career criminals should not be trusted."
* "Corporation X is wrong for cooking its books."

* "Don't buy season tickets for the Broncos, because they suck."

* "Tom Cruise is an oddball."

* "Bar Z's happy-hour prices and selection suck."

* "The band Korn plays horrible music."

* "George W. Bush has expanded state control over our lives."

All of these statements are examples of "advocating against" an individual, group, or organization. I wonder what fraction of web pages that display ads by Google or Yahoo don't violate this policy on a regular basis?

Both Google and Yahoo link by association reasonable, peaceable advocacy—i.e., responsible free speech—with the promotion of violence and racism. I am baffled as to how two major internet companies ended up paying somebody to write such idiotic policies (but there I go again, "advocating against" somebody).

However, Yahoo's policies get even worse. It forbids "Content related to human suffering or death." In other words, my blogs about Douglas Bruce kicking a photographer, a dumb kid shooting his friend, and the murders at New Life Church are forbidden by Yahoo's ad program. If a web page discusses "Weaponry, ammunition, fireworks or explosives," then it cannot display Yahoo ads. In other words, no user can discuss any crime or the Fourth of July. Also forbidden are "Political, religious or charitable organizations, issues or causes."

What exactly is allowed under Yahoo's ad policies? I suppose you could talk about kittens. Just don't "advocate against" the man (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7961967) who allegedly "threw [a kitten] against a wall in his mobile-home trailer," killing it.

Cruise Control

January 19, 2008

Tom Cruise is an amazing man, according to his own self-evaluation. Roger Friedman has (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322854,00.html) written up an account of the recently released videos in which Cruise attempts to promote Scientology (but just comes off looking weird). Here's one of Cruise's statements, as recorded at Diana Hsieh's blog [dead link: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/01/tom-cruise-scientologist-nut.html]: "We are the authorities on getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind, we are the authorities on improving conditions. We can rehabilitate criminals, we can bring peace and unite cultures."

Because who needs drugs when you can have Scientology?

Regarding the other claims, color me a skeptic.

I read somewhere that the church came out with a statement condemning the new "unauthorized biography" of Cruise, calling the book bigoted. However, reasoned criticism is not bigotry. I could not find the statement at (http://www.scientology.org/) Scientology.org. However, I did find the following statement:

Man is an immortal, spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized—and those capabilities can be realized. He is able to not only solve his own problems, accomplish his goals and gain lasting happiness, but also achieve new, higher states of awareness and ability.

This is basically pop Platonism. In terms of its basic metaphysical views, the doctrines of Scientology are hardly stranger than those of Christianity. Beyond that, Scientology's specific programs, (http://www.scientology.org/results/introservice/books/dmsmh.html) such as "auditing techniques for erasing engrams and creating Clears," constitute silly mumbo-jumbo. If you get taken in by Scientology, you deserve to be.

All that said, I've really enjoyed some of Tom Cruise's movies. Even people with quite peculiar and even horrid ideas can show great talent in certain fields. (To take another example, Bobby Fischer, who (http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL1870892220080118) recently died, was great at chess but crazy in his evaluations of Jews and the United States. You don't need Scientology to sound like a nut.) I have no intention of reading the "unauthorized biography" of Tom Cruise. He's an actor; that's it. If he's headed for Michael Jackson Land, I could care less. And I think plenty of critiques of Scientology are out there.

Regressives

January 19, 2008

Jason Salzman writes the following in today's Rocky Mountain News [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/19/salzman-caplis-silverman-gap-too-narrow/]:

By a real progressive, I mean someone who supports these kinds of things: raising the federal minimum wage to $11 per hour; a ban on construction of new coal-fired power plants; a government-run health-care system; the free distribution of condoms in public high schools; gay marriage; an increase in the capital gains tax; troop withdrawal from Iraq within six months; and the legalization and taxation of marijuana.

The first thing to note about this list is that it is not organized around any essential unifying idea. Some of the items involve more political force; others involve less. For example, I fully support the re-legalization of marijuana. I also favor domestic partnerships, though I care not whether these are called "marriages." I support those things on the basis of individual rights.

Several of the other items involve more political control of the economy. But economic socialism is not "progressive;" it is regressive and reactionary. Imposing more severe wage controls would further violate the rights of employers and employees to interact voluntarily, and it would throw some inexperienced and low-skilled workers out of a job. Imposing socialized medicine would violate the rights of doctors, patients, and other parties to associate voluntarily, and it would lead to worse care, much higher taxes, and rationing.

What is stunning is that people who want to send in men with guns to prevent people from entering into voluntary agreements—and force them into involuntary arrangements—are sometimes called "progressives." There's nothing progressive about it.

Reader Comment: I think the reason they cannot put a conservative up against a "real progressive" as that writer defines it is that any conservative, libertarian, or objectivist could so easily destroy the argument of most "progressive" positions. Even a hack like Dan Caplis would seem reasonable up against a typical Green voter who, with the exception of marijuana, thinks more government is the answer to all ills. At least Silverman being a moderate, often makes great points and is fairly persuasive, more than he would if he was just knee jerking "solutions" that should imposed on us by the force of the government.

Does Entropy Disprove Evolution?

January 20, 2008

I can't remember how I ran across the (http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1) following argument against evolution, but I thought it was darn funny:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

I've heard this "entropy" argument against evolution before, and the quote strikes me as a particularly eloquent refutation of the basic argument (for those, who, apparently unlike the original poster, "certainly know about" just such "a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy.")

I haven't tried to track down the original posting of this comment, so perhaps it was intended as humor. Yet it tracks other statements obviously intended to be taken seriously. For example, (http://www.new-testament-christian.com/aboutus.html) Kevin Haag (who (http://www.new-testament-christian.com/kevinhaagtestimony.html) found religion more appealing than life as a drug-abusing partier) includes on his "New Testament Christian" web page the document, (http://www.new-testament-christian.com/evolution.html) "Ten Major Flaws of Evolution," by Randy Alcorn ("with additional editing by Jim Darnall"). Alcorn, the (http://www.new-testament-christian.com/randy-alcorn.html) author of books such as Heaven, 50 Days of Heaven, and Heaven for Kids, offers a slightly more sophisticated argument against evolution based on entropy:

This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

Alcorn does not overlook the existence of the Sun; he just flatly denies that the Sun or any other energy source (including chemical and geothermal) could have provided any of the energy that contributed to the evolution of life on earth. Good enough for apologetics, I guess.

Of course, Christianity cannot be judged by the sillier comments of some Christians. No movement can be so judged. (And, anyway, plenty of Christians believe that evolution is true.) To take another example, people who claim to (http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=9458) see the image of Jesus in some random mark shouldn't be taken as representative. (Thanks to (http://www.geekpress.com/) Paul Hsieh for the link.)

That said, some comments are both silly and self-refuting, such as (http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=9469) the following:

"We regret to announce that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, the publication of The Astrological Magazine will cease with the December 2007 issue."

"Crank This Sucker Up"

January 20, 2008

Deb Riechmann (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8006265) writes for the AP that President Bush supports "an economic rescue package that would include extra money for food stamps and jobless benefits in addition to tax rebates of hundreds of dollars each for millions of Americans. . . . 'Crank this sucker up,' he exclaimed. . . ."

But the only suckers are the ones who believe that Bush's plan will do any long-term good.

There are two obvious problems with Bush's proposal. First, it includes no commitment to offsetting the welfare transfers and tax rebates with reductions in federal spending. Second, it seems to promise more federal spending to cover the additional welfare transfers. In other words, spending will go up even more, while tax revenues will go down. This will be achieved through the magic of deficit spending, which necessarily takes real wealth out of the private economy by reducing investments, and/or more inflation. And, to address the problem of unemployment, Bush will pay people more not to work. That's Bush's strategy for "rescuing" the economy.

The Democrats are unhappy because Bush does not want to bump up federal spending to even higher levels than he already plans: "'We want a balanced package of tax rebates for the middle class and spending stimuli that jump-start the economy quickly. The president has included one; he also needs the other to quickly improve our economy,' said Charles Schumer, D-N.Y."

Because the way to "jump-start the economy" is to forcibly take even more wealth from the people who earn it and turn it over to bureaucrats. "Spending stimuli" in this context is a euphemism for taking other people's money for political payoffs to special interests.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinionheadlines/ci_7971180) agrees with the basic strategies above but also wants more tax breaks for businesses and, apparently, some sort of federal bailout for people who signed onto mortgages that they cannot now afford. Oh, and force down the interest rate more.

Nowhere in the popular media have I read about the policies that would actually improve the economy over the long term: cut (or at least restrain) federal spending and reduce political economic controls.

Cato's Daniel Mitchell (http://cato.org/pressroom.php?display=comments&id=812) gets the basic problems with Bush's proposal:

The president's proposed stimulus based on "temporary" tax cuts designed to boost "consumer spending" will not work. It is a disappointing re-run of the misguided policies of Jimmy Carter. Rebates are particularly disappointing because they resuscitate the discredited Keynesian notion that an economy benefits when the government borrows money from people in one sector of the economy and distributes it to people in another sector of the economy. Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in national income, not a redistribution of national income.

However, even Mitchell, a (http://cato.org/people/mitchell.html) supply-sider, talks about tax cuts without mentioning spending cuts:

That is why lower marginal tax rates on work, saving, and investment are the best short-term and long-term strategy for faster growth. But such tax rate reductions should be permanent since temporary tax cuts—even well-designed tax rate reductions rather than rebates—do little more than generate economic activity today at the expense of less activity in the future.

Yet the first part of Mitchell's comments explains why tax cuts without spending cuts don't work.

Does Religion Have Adaptive Value?

January 21, 2008

Yesterday, I discussed some Christians who claim that evolutionary biology (at least in terms of species evolving into new species) is false. Today, I'll briefly review an (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/21/desecrating_darwins_cathedral) article by Dinesh D'Souza that attempts to show that evolutionary theory supports religion ("Desecrating Darwin's Cathedral," January 21, 2008).

D'Souza, who is so confident in his intellectual superiority that that he calls his opponents fools (as well as belligerent militants [see a previous post on the unicorn analogy]), quotes an article by David Sloan Wilson to criticize Richard Dawkins:

Wilson examines Dawkins' central claim that religion is an obvious "delusion." On the contrary, Wilson writes, religion is in general more adaptive for human communities than atheism. "On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning, rather than gratifying their impulsive desires...They report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited."

Wilson gives a telling example: The Jains of India seem to have bizarre religious habits. They won't kill any creature, even cockroaches. They sometimes fast virtually unto death. They have been known to refuse contact with non-Jains. The Jains would easily satisfy Dawkins' view of religion as a senseless delusion. And yet Wilson points out that the Jains are basically the Jews of India: they are one of the most successful economic communities in the world. The reason, he suggests, is that religious practices that seem weird and impractical to outsiders actually cultivate deep bonds of trust between Jains. This economic solidarity is crucial for a diaspora trading community that has built economic networks throughout Asia and around the world. What seems like a pointless delusion turns out to be eminently practical. From the evolutionist's perspective--and in terms of the only currency that counts for a biologist--Jain practices have demonstrated "survival value."

Let us first take these claims at face value. D'Souza argues himself into a tight corner. For if religion survives because of its "survival value" for humans, the way that, say, the eyeball survives because of its survival value, then there's no reason to believe that religion is true. The truth of religion is simply beside the point. According to D'Souza's argument, it simply doesn't matter whether God exists, whether Jesus rose from the dead, whether people live beyond the death of the body, etc. Those are not the reasons that cultures actually accept religion, according to this line of thought. Instead, cultures accept religion, regardless of the truth of the claims of religion, because it helps its members to advance their lives and pass on their genes.

But D'Souza argues that, in particular, Christianity is true. I suppose he would counter that all sorts of other reasons (such as the design of the universe) independently prove the truth of religion in general and Christianity in particular. And yet his argument about the evolutionary "survival value" of religion clashes with any such additional claims. As the example of Jainism demonstrates, the alleged "survival value" of religion has nothing to do with the truth of particular claims of any specific religion. Instead, the "survival value" of religion has everything to do with the particular culture in which it arises. D'Souza's argument cannot ultimately endorse Christianity; at most, it can endorse adopting the most successful religion in one's culture. D'Souza's argument is thus essentially one of cultural relativism.

By accepting the claim that beliefs, as well as biological traits, are subject to the evolutionary process, D'Souza cuts religion off from truth in another way. Human volition implies that people can accept ideas, true or false, helpful or harmful, based on whether and how they apply reason to the facts of reality. But the claim that beliefs, including religion beliefs, are merely a product of evolution comparable to the evolution of biological traits, implies that beliefs as such are a matter of convenience, not a matter of truth, and that one has no inherent connection with the other. D'Souza's article thus reveals a deep strain of pragmatism, in which "truth" is not a matter of objective assessment but of workability, again subject to the variances of time and place. While some Christians argue against biological evolution on the grounds that blind chance cannot produce order, D'Souza implies that religious beliefs too are the product of blind chance. The reason that we have an eyeball is that it works. Likewise, the reason that we have religion is that it works, and nothing more needs to be said about it. It arises in an essentially deterministic universe.

D'Souza contradicts himself in another way. He constantly berates and mocks atheists for criticizing Christianity. He (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/dsouzas-unicorn-analogy.html) says that, if atheists really didn't believe in God, then they wouldn't write books condemning religion, just as we don't write books condemning unicorns. But if D'Souza really believes that religion has "survival value," then why does he write books and articles condemning atheists and proclaiming them fools? Biologists don't condemn maladaptive mutations; they just explain how they work. Why does D'Souza rush to point out the inferiority of atheists, if their beliefs are analogous to a maladaptive mutation? Why does he care about the particular beliefs of any given individual, when evolution will win out? Perhaps the answer is that the One True Religion (i.e., Christianity) is destined to win out, and D'Souza is an instrument in God's evolutionary plan.

However, the entire enterprise of interpreting beliefs from the framework of evolutionary biology is basically on the wrong track. Some of the analogies are interesting, such as the idea of a "meme," if limited in scope. And of course there is an important sense in which ideas "evolve," in that people teach ideas to others, who then often adapt the ideas. So too is there a feedback mechanism: ideas matter, and acting on different ideas will lead to different consequences. Beyond that the analogy breaks down. The point of evolutionary biology is that chance mutations either help or hurt the organism; the process is not guided by any intelligence. But ideas are the product of intelligence.

The practice of starving yourself to death is the product not of an "adaptive" belief but of a stupid one. Moreover, the practice is immoral, and it impedes, rather than advances, the interests of the Jains. If we're going to talk about the Jains, why don't we talk about the caste system in India, or the religious monarchies of ancient Egypt, or the primitive tribal religions, or the Islamic totalitarians? Adaptive, all?

Statistical surveys about the quality of lives of religious believers in the modern West say nothing about the truth or benefits of the religious beliefs (even ignoring possible methodological flaws of such surveys). American Christians are substantially secular, and their traditions generally include the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which glorify life on earth and the pursuit of earthly happiness. Moreover, many self-proclaimed atheists are taken with other false beliefs, such as those by Kant, Marx, Freud, and Derrida—beliefs that promote subjectivism and ultimately nihilism. I do not doubt that many Christians are happier than many Marxists, Freudians, and moral subjectivists. And that says exactly nothing about whether Christianity is true.

Comment by Neil Parille: I don't think much of D'Souza (a lightweight even among neoconservatives) but he may have a point. According to evolution, creatures and species are successful to the extent they reproduce. And it does appear that religion is a particularly good way to encourage people to have children (although a few groups such as Shakers are celibate). Religion often teaches a forward looking attitude and religious groups tend to have more children. I've even read of studies that religious people fear death less than the irreligious (which might be a factor in their willingness to bring children into a troubled world). Europe is an example. With the decline of Christianity, many countries have a birth rate below the replacement rate. A revitilization of Christianity might be the only way to prevent Europe from being swamped by Moslems. This of course doesn't prove that religion in general or any particular religion is true, but I find it interesting.

The Cause of High Health-Care Costs

January 21, 2008

Why do health-care costs in America keep spiraling upward? Dr. Mark Earnest offers his view in a letter to the Rocky Mountain News (January 10) [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/10/cut-out-health-care-%20%3Cbr%20/%3Emiddlemen/]:

Steve Hyde's commentary article of Dec. 29, "An unhealthy cure," might have stumbled on an appropriate diagnosis (the soaring cost of health care), but offers only a self-serving placebo as the cure (high-deductible health plans).

If increased cost sharing for patients lowered health-care costs, America would have the cheapest health care in the world. Currently, Americans pay far more out of pocket for their health care—both in real dollars and as a percentage of the total cost—than citizens of any other country, and yet our health care is the most expensive in the world. . . .

Health care in this country has become an industry filled with countless layers of middlemen who earn millions by finding new ways of coming between patients and their care. If we're really serious about lowering the cost of health care, we should
design a system that cuts out superfluous overhead and pays for care rather than executives and administrators.

Earnest is wrong that "Americans pay far more out of pocket," according to a January 17 letter by Michael Darnel [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/17/out-of-pocket-%20%3Cbr%20/%3Ehealth-costs-fairly-low-in-us/]:

In his letter of Jan. 10, "Cut out health-care middlemen," Dr. Mark Earnest states that Americans pay far more out of pocket for their health care as a percentage of the total cost than citizens of any other country. This is not supported from data in the current, Jan. 1, issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

On Page 64 is data for 27 countries from 2004. Only 4 countries paid less, and 22 countries paid more out of pocket than Americans. Average out-of-pocket costs were 19.8 percent, while in the U.S. it was 13.2 percent. Examples include Switzerland (31.9 percent), Italy (21.0 percent), Japan (17.3 percent) and Canada (14.9 percent).

Yaron Brook (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/01/08/health-republican-plans-oped-cx_ybr_0108health.html) further details the figures for America: "For every dollar's worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out-of-pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14%."

Earnest believes that the problem is the high costs of overhead, administration, and middlemen. Yet the cause of those costs is precisely the system of employer-paid medical "insurance" that covers nearly every expense. When a patient pays a doctor directly, there is no middleman. Employers and insurers have nothing to do with the transaction. Furthermore, the patient has a much greater incentive to seek the best care at the most affordable price. As I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/04/meddling.html) argued, this is the proper model for routine and low-cost care. High-deductible health plans by their nature mostly cut out the costs that Earnest protests, yet Earnest dismisses such insurance out of hand, without bothering to explain how else such costs might be reduced.

My Religious Background

January 22, 2008

"Dan" asked about my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/major-changes-to-ariarmstrongcom-and.html) January 16 post, "How about a summary of your own religious background and how you came to your current thinking on religion?" Fair enough.

I would (briefly) describe my life in three main stages. Of course, it took me several years to transition from one stage to the next.

1. Deeply religious childhood. I was raised in an independent Christian Church, and I attended Bible studies and camps growing up. In addition to the Bible, I read various, more modern Christian works, including parts of Evidence that Demands a Verdict and a couple of books by C.S. Lewis. I remember distinctly in high school that one of my Christian friends invited me over to another one of his friend's house to talk about religion. The other friend was not religious. We talked for quite a while, and I argued that Christianity is demonstrated by God's works in nature and his impact on human lives.

2. Struggling atheist. I also started to read Ayn Rand in high school, and she posed serious challenges to my religious beliefs. My first lengthy paper, and my best paper of high school, attempted to reconcile the doctrines of Christianity with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, I did not integrate the moral virtues as described by Rand (most of which are widely regarded as legitimate, though Rand puts her unique spin on them) into my personal behavior very well. (It can be difficult to transition from a morality of "God says so" to one based on the requirements of human life as discovered by reason.) I remained deeply rationalistic in my understanding of philosophy, and I grew deeply pragmatic in my personal life. I did some really stupid things during these years that I really regret.

3. Maturing thinker and actor. Slowly, I have learned a lot more about life, prudence, character, and philosophy. I'm still working to improve myself in various ways, but basically I consider myself to be "on track." I've been part of a stable (and fun and developing) marriage for nearly a decade. I'm older (36 now) and a bit wiser. I'm an atheist but not fundamentally an atheist—atheism merely rules out certain beliefs; it does not define a positive philosophy. Especially over the last couple of years, I've grown to appreciate the contributions of (http://peikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff a lot more. In Peikoff's terms, I went from "Misintegration" to mild "Disintegration" to "Integration," which I continue to work toward.

My interest in religion, then, arises from two main sources. First, it dramatically impacted my youth and thus the rest of my life. Second, obviously religion has an enormous cultural and political influence. I think my comments, then, may be of interest to Christians as they contemplate their own beliefs, to atheists as they figure out a positive alternative to religion, and to those interested in the impact of religion on the world in which we live.

Medicine: The High Costs of Political Controls

January 22, 2008

From Grand Junction's Free Press: "More political control of medicine comes with higher costs"

January 21, 2008

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The left packages its programs in terms that sound good, even if the claims have little to do with the program itself. Recently some health "reformers" have loudly declared that more political control of medicine will supposedly save you money. Why? (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7908096) The Denver Post claimed on January 8: "Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance." The figure itself is fishy, but the broader claim that it allegedly supports is ridiculous.

While details differ, most plans—including several to be touted by Colorado's "208" Healthcare Commission next week—would force everyone to purchase politically-approved health insurance and impose massive new taxes to expand medical welfare. The proposed tax hike for Colorado starts at over a billion dollars per year and likely would grow to several billion.

The current jargon for skipping out on a hospital bill is "cost shifting." That is, people who don't pay their bills shift those costs onto the rest of us. That's bad, but what is the left-wing "solution" for such cost-shifting? It is to force you to pay more in taxes than you now pay for the cost-shifting. In other words, we are to believe that the way to reduce cost-shifting is to expand it.

On top of that, the figure of $950 of cost-shifting to each insured family is not very credible. The 208 Commission funded a study by the Lewin Group that suggests a much lower figure. The study claims that $239 million will be spent on the uninsured this year that is "free from provider"—much less than proposed tax hikes. (An additional $211 million comes from "public programs," but this is funded through taxes, not insurance premiums. The rest of the $1.4 billion is covered through out-of-pocket payments, private philanthropy, workers' compensation, and funds for veterans.) Around 2.8 million Coloradans have private insurance. The first figure divided by the second suggests a cost of around $85 per insured individual. (Brian Schwartz, Ph.D., whose free-market proposal is available at WhoOwnsYou.org, pointed us to these figures.)

Yet, regardless of the exact figure, the expansion of tax-funded medicine would not address "cost shifting" nearly as well as its supporters pretend. As the health-care experiment in Massachusetts proves, even the most ambitious program cannot force everyone to obtain insurance. Transients, illegal immigrants, and many among the chronically poor would continue to forgo insurance and seek "free" care. Moreover, the expanded tax-funded programs would encourage more use without regard for costs. The left claims that more tax funding would promote primary-care visits and thus reduce long-term costs, but the reality is that many of the highest-cost freeloaders neglect their health (such as by abusing drugs and alcohol) and would continue to do so.

That said, we ought not scapegoat the uninsured as a group. Many among the uninsured maintain their health, and they pay for their health care themselves. According to Lewin's figures, the uninsured as a group pay 45 percent of their costs, while private charity pays another 14 percent. Yet most of the uninsured pay all of their bills themselves.

Why is health insurance too expensive for some people? Medicare and Medicaid notoriously underpay their health bills, forcing those with private insurance to pick up part of the tab. Health costs in general have skyrocketed because of the tax distortion that promotes employer-paid insurance that encourages use without regard for cost. And a variety of mandated benefits dramatically increase the costs of insurance premiums. The way to expand health insurance is to repeal the political controls that have made it so expensive.

While we're on the topic of controls, why is it that some people can demand "free" care from hospitals in the first place? After all, people can't force businesses to give them "free" food or clothing. The reason is that the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985... requires that hospitals that accept Medicare patients diagnose and treat anyone who comes within two hundred feet of an emergency room, regardless of whether the person can pay for the treatment" (see the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) article by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, at TheObjectiveStandard.com). We should repeal that unjust law and return to a system of voluntary charity.

Over the coming months, you may often hear claims that massive tax hikes and expanded political control of medicine will save you money. If you value your health and your money, you will recognize such claims for what they are—dishonest spin. Don't be fooled: expanded medical welfare will cost you plenty, and ever more as the programs grow. In the long term, the only way that politicians can control costs is to impose rationing. The alternative is to repeal the political controls that have created the problems and turn to liberty in medicine.

Self-Defense in Fountain

January 22, 2008

A Fountain man defended his home from intruders over the weekend [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/22/fountain-teen-says-he-didnt-hesitate-shoot-home-in/]:

Fountain teen says he didn't hesitate to shoot home invaders
Associated Press
Originally published 08:51 a.m., January 22, 2008
Updated 08:51 a.m., January 22, 2008

FOUNTAIN—A Fountain teenager who woke up to the sounds of robbers in his home says he didn't hesitate to shoot the men before they took off with an iPod.

Fountain police spokesman Sergeant Jess Freeman says the suspects are currently hospitalized for treatment of gunshot wounds.

Their names have not been released.

Nineteen-year-old Cody Buckler says he was asleep at about 11 p.m. Sunday when he heard unfamiliar voices in the living room.

He told authorities he heard someone tell a child in the house that he was a police officer, so he crept down the hall and saw two men who were wearing masks, hats and gloves.

Buckler then went back to his bedroom, retrieved a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both suspects.

Police say both men had semiautomatic handguns.

It's not clear what Buckler's relationship to the children is. (The references to a "teen" and "teenager" are somewhat misleading, as a 19 year old is legally an adult.) Assuming that the facts are basically as stated, certainly the shootings were justified. Of course, even better is to secure one's home so that breaking into it is more difficult. It's a very scary thing when armed criminals stand between you and children. In this case, apparently the criminals were just after loot, but that's impossible for the homeowner to determine at the time. I don't know how the criminals entered the home in this case. However, remarkably often people leave windows open and even doors unlocked. Good lighting, secure windows, and bolt locks will deter many criminals. Alarms can be a good option for some. Families should also think carefully about action plans. I have no specific advice to offer on this point, but one possibility is to teach children to hide if they hear strangers in the house. At any rate, the intruders committed a serious and highly dangerous crime, and they deserve a long stay in prison.

Hello, Satan?

January 23, 2008

Here's the story, as (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318765,00.html) reported by the AP:

'Very Religious Community' Gets Rid of 666 Phone Prefix
Friday, December 28, 2007

REEVES, La.—After decades of living with what Mayor Scott Walker calls a stigma, residents of this southwest Louisiana village are getting a new telephone exchange, one without the biblical connotations attached to their current 666. . . .

There are three churches in town, two Bible and one Baptist, and fewer than 450 homes, he said. In the Bible, 666 is depicted as the mark of the beast, and those taking the mark would be associating themselves with Satan, he said.

"It's been a 40-year battle" to change the number, he said, counting at least four failed attempts.

This year, after a resident contacted the mayor with questions about the prefix, Walker said he polled residents and found overwhelming support for a change. He worked with the phone company, CenturyTel, and the state Public Service Commission among others to make the change. He said he began publicizing the option Sunday, addressing first the local churches and then reaching out to local media.

"It's been a black eye for our town, a stigma," he said. . . . "This is a good town. . . . We're good Christian people."

However, this irrational fear of the prefix 666 has nothing to do with Christianity; it is primitive superstition, on par with a fear of the 13th row on airplanes. No self-respecting Christian with a remotely sophisticated view of religion would worry about such trivial matters. From a Christian perspective, I imagine that God would prefer a charitable deed to an effort to change one's phone number. That said, the rise of evangelical Christianity accompanies a certain disdain for the principles of science. The basic rejection of evolutionary biology is barely more sophisticated than numerological superstition. New-age mysticism, environmentalist mysticism, superstitious practices , and anti-scientific evangelical Christianity are symptoms of the same cultural problems.

But it's still a pretty damn funny story. And, speaking of funny, catch Ricky Gervais's (http://youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA) reading of Creation.

Comment by Neil Parille: I imagine its pretty annoying to be asked your phone number and constantly get a response "oh the mark of the beast" or whatever. Almost as bad as having the name of a famous person. In my town there is a Beelzebub Drive, a sort of sleepy hollow type road. I wouldn't mind living there.

Heath Ledger, 1979–2008

January 23, 2008

I was saddened to read of the death of Heath Ledger, who had become one of my favorite actors.

(http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/01/heath_ledger_1979_2008.html) On the very day of the Oscar nominations being announced for 2007, the Australian actor Heath Ledger was found dead in a Manhattan apartment. Born in Perth, in Western Australia, Heathcliff Andrew Ledger would have been 29 this April 4th. First reports of his death mentioned drugs in evidence, but no one really knows enough yet to say anything except how great the loss is. Ever since he played Mel Gibson's son in The Patriot (2000), it was apparent that his striking handsomeness went hand-in-hand with high ambitions as an actor, courage in the roles he took and a fierce intelligence. He is likely now to be known forever for his cowboy, Ennis, in Brokeback Mountain... At his death he had just finished playing the Joker in a new version of Batman—The Dark Knight—and that may reveal fresh sides to what was a developing career.

A year and a half ago, I wrote:

Previously I predicted that I wouldn't think much of Brokeback Mountain, the gay cowboy movie. What I did not anticipate was Heath Ledger's hauntingly sorrowful performance. Yes, the movie is beautifully directed and the rest of the cast is very good, but it is Ledger who makes it a memorable movie. I've always enjoyed Ledger's movies, but his performance in Brokeback is amazing. ...

An aside. It occurred to me that, if somebody wanted to spend a lot of money and make even more, they'd hire a competent writer to turn Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead into a full season of television (roughly 22 episodes each 45 minutes in length), then hire Ledger to play Howard Roark...

I also enjoyed Ledger's Casanova, even though the story of the movie spins a bit out of control.

The movie I've been most looking forward to is Dark Knight. Judging from the previews, Ledger's performance is stunning. I'm still looking forward to the movie, but now I'll have to watch it with more than an undercurrent of sorrow.

Peikoff's Seventh Podcast

January 23, 2008

Leonard Peikoff released his seventh podcast today. Following is my brief review of the discussion (which again should not be taken as a substitute for the podcast).

1. Mother Teresa would not have been happy at a Fortune 500 company; does this show that productive work is not necessarily one's proper, primary purpose?

Peikoff first discusses the value of productive work as a means to sustain one's self and contribute to one's happiness; it is not itself the "primary purpose" of ethics. Nor does productive work guarantee happiness; it should be a part of a whole set of consistent values. Moreover, one cannot judge the happiness of a person from superficial appearances or statements.

A point that I was thinking of, but that Peikoff does not make, is that working for a Fortune 500 company is not necessary for productive work. For example, The Fountainhead offers examples of artists who do the work that they love, even if it means a reduced income.

2. Is it a "moral crime" to purchase the works of an artist who at some level opposes one's core values? Peikoff answers, "it depends."

3. What is the difference between the terms "hate" and "despise?" Hatred involves an element of fear.

4. Are various rules, such as mandatory auto insurance, legitimate for government-owned roads? Peikoff replies that roads should be privately owned, but, so long as they are run by the government, the government must set (and we should follow) various rules.

5. What's a good dictionary? Peikoff likes the Random House College dictionary for regular use, and the Oxford dictionary for more philosophical work.

Searching for King's Dream

January 23, 2008

Rep. Terrance Carroll, a man whom I've met and whom I respect, made some difficult comments on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Writing for the Rocky Mountain News, Chris Barge (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/22/carroll-how-can-we-celebrate-this-holiday-in-all/) reports that "Carroll set aside his prepared remarks" and instead offered the following:

From . . . the fact that in this state more than 60 percent of our students of color do not graduate from high school within four years; from the fact that in a state where only 4 percent of the total population is African-American yet 25 percent of our prison population consists of African-American men and African-American women, it seemed to be improper and inappropriate at this time to stand before you and say that Dr. King's dream has meant a great deal to all of us. ... How can we celebrate this holiday in all honesty, and march and get up and shout and sing songs when the truth of the matter is... [t]here are far too many people in this country who don't dream anymore. They don't have hopes. They don't have aspirations. They just find despair, they just find apathy, and they just find hatred.

In fact, many people, black and white alike, are living King's dream. Carroll's position in the state legislature is testament to that. One can find many successful black Coloradans in politics, journalism, and business. But Carroll's sorrow comes from somewhere. A lot of African Americans (joined by portions of all ethnicities) do continue to suffer the problems that he describes. The causes are many, though they are related: a subculture that eschews education and tolerates violence, economic controls that encourage dependency and punish productivity, and residual racism.

On this last point, today perhaps the larger problem than bigotry against blacks is the racism of multiculturalism. Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Institute argues [dead link: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16465]:

Achievement of a truly color-blind society will require not only that private individuals reject racism but that government policies and programs cease to favor some citizens over others on the basis of skin color. The solution to racism in government does not lie in further race-conscious, affirmative action programs that generate de facto quotas, nor in multicultural education that locates personal identity in one's ethnic group. Because such policies are themselves racist, they are part of the problem.

Yet, as I've (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/18/speakout-loading-the-dice-against-responsibility/) argued, individuals can, by their own choices, either fall into the problems that Carroll describes or escape them. I break no new ground in describing the basic recipe for success, given a society that remains at least largely free, as a good education, hard work, perseverance, thrift, and strong values.

Dueling Doctors

January 24, 2008

In response to the January 21 article by my dad and me, "More political control of medicine comes with higher costs," Dr. Michael Pramenko wrote, "With medicine, don't forget compassion" (dead link: http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080124/OPINION/836393850). Of course, the initiation of political force, which Pramenko advocates, is the antithesis of compassion.

Dr. Paul Hsieh in turn responded to Pramenko's article (dead link: http://apps.gjfreepress.com/gj_polls/story-comments.php?sid=836393850&tid=2600). Following are some of Hsieh's remarks:

Dr. Pramenko is completely wrong and the Armstrongs are completely right on this issue.

Countries which have attempted to guarantee universal health care have ended up rationing care, to the detriment of patients and doctors alike. This is hardly compassionate, as we've seen with desperate UK patients who have resorted to pulling their own teeth because the government system won't let them see a dentist, even when they're in excruciating pain. Similar problems are widespread in Canada (where women routinely wait for months for their government-approved surgery and chemotherapy after discovering a malignant lump in their breast) or Sweden, Australia, or anywhere else that health care is left up to the "compassion" of the government.

The current problems of the American system are due to government interference in the free markets for medical care and insurance. The current system is anything but a free market. And the only viable solution is to respect individual rights and allow a free market.

As a practicing physician, it would be morally wrong of me to advocate for so-called "universal health care". Why would I want to support a system which literally kills honest hard-working patients and destroys medical practitioners? Colorado attorney Lin Zinser and I have written an article on this topic entitled "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'" in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of the national journal, "The Objective Standard".

The full text of (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) our article is available online. . . .

Every socialized economy in the world has been instituted by force in the name of "compassion", but because they violate basic rights of individuals, they always lead to misery and suffering. In contrast, free markets are always (and unjustly) called "heartless", yet they provide tremendous benefits to everyone on the economic ladder because they allow individuals to freely pursue their rational self-interest. The sectors of American medicine which have the least government regulation (such as cosmetic surgery and LASIK eye surgery) show continued decreases in costs and improvements in quality, just like the rest of the free-er US economy, precisely because the government does not attempt to guarantee those services as an entitlement "right".

If Colorodans value their lives and their health, they'll reject the siren song of the advocates of socialized medicine and the proposals of the 208 Commission, and support genuine free market reforms instead.

I'll offer my own response to Pramenko's claims at a later date.

Waiting Periods for Abortions?

January 24, 2008

The Colorado legislature will consider a bill to require waiting periods and ultrasound services before a woman can obtain an abortion:

(http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/01/23/012308_1b_abortion.html) Lawmaker seeking new requirements for abortions
By Mike Saccone
The Daily Sentinel
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Women in Colorado seeking to end their pregnancies would have to be offered an ultrasound before they undergo an abortion under legislation proposed by Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs. . . .

Senate Bill 95, introduced Monday, would require abortion providers to give information about receiving ultrasounds to pregnant women who are considering abortion. The bill would require doctors to administer an ultrasound if the woman requests one. Women who are informed of their ultrasound rights and still choose to have the abortion would be required to wait 24 hours before having the procedure.

This bill would violate the rights of doctors and patients by putting political force between them. Mainly the bill would increase the costs—of money and time—of obtaining an abortion. Saccone continues:

Jody Berger, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said women often travel long distances to obtain abortions, and making them wait 24 hours to obtain one, after being advised of the availability of ultrasounds, could be a financial burden.

She said it could, for example, force the women to stay overnight at a hotel or make a second long drive to an abortion clinic.

Beyond the extra, needless expense of time and money, the bill treats women as though they were incapable of making their own decisions without the help of politicians. Women are already fully aware of the nature and implications of abortion, and they can already order an ultrasound if they want one. The bill likewise subjects doctors to the whims of political force.

Ironically, Schultheis (http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/1998-survey.html) answered yes to the following question: "Would you oppose legislation mandating a waiting period before the purchase of a firearm?" Apparently, Schultheis believes that women are responsible enough to decide to buy a gun when they want, but not to get an abortion when they want.

Just as the anti-gun lobby attempts to impose additional costs on gun owners in order to discourage gun ownership, so Schultheis wants to impose additional costs on women who want an abortion.

As women have the right to purchase tools of self-defense without political interference, so they have the right to get an abortion without political interference. Of course, Schultheis believes that women have no moral right, and should be striped of their legal right, to get an abortion. He's wrong, but rather than address the issue head-on, he undermines his other views in calling for costly and invasive political restrictions on legally permitted actions.

SpaceShipTwo

January 24, 2008

Yesterday The New York Times published a (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/science/space/23cnd-spaceship.html) story about Burt Rutan's SpaceShipTwo:

Burt Rutan took the cloak off of his new spacecraft on Wednesday.

Mr. Rutan, the creator of SpaceShipOne, the first privately financed craft to carry a human into space, traveled to New York to show detailed models of the bigger SpaceShipTwo and its carrier airplane, WhiteKnightTwo. . . .

Officials at the press conference said that the WhiteKnight aircraft is 70 percent complete and that SpaceShipTwo is 60 percent complete. Test flights of the planes could occur this year. Passenger flights are not expected to begin before late 2009 or 2010.

This is a modest step toward commercial space exploration, but it is an important step. While I probably won't be able to afford a seat on any of Rutan's crafts, I'll cheer on those who can. "You can't take the sky from me."

Bye-Bye Blue Laws?

January 24, 2008

It seems likely that the Democrats will succeed at what Republicans never even attempted: repeal the Blue Law that prohibits Sunday liquor sales at stores. (I have heard of no attempt to remove the restrictions on Sunday auto sales.) While Democrats usually climb all over themselves to impose more economic controls, this time they seem ready to do the unthinkable: expand economic liberty.

Roger Fillion (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/24/sunday-liquor-sales-possible/) writes for the Rocky Mountain News:

SB-082, introduced by Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, would permit liquor stores to open Sundays. Sixteen states and Washington, D.C., bar Sunday sales of distilled spirits. . . .

Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, is expected to offer a bill soon that would permit grocery stores such as Safeway and King Soopers to sell regular beer and wine six days a week, except Sundays. Stores that qualify must have a pharmacy and food sales that make up at least 51 percent of gross sales.

The reason that the bill is likely to pass this year, notes Fillion, is that "Colorado liquor store owners have reversed their long-standing opposition to Sunday liquor sales." But of course liquor stores are opposed to allowing free-market competition at grocery stores; instead, liquor stores want to rely upon existing protectionist legislation to squash competition. So any grocery-store reform is unlikely. Still, I'll take half a loaf this year, though I'll continue to advocate economic liberty across the board.

According to the article, many liquor stores now want Sunday sales for two reasons. First, they think they can make money on Sunday. Second, they think that, by offering customers better service, they'll reduce support for the grocery-store bill:

"If it's what the consumer wants and it's going there, there's no use fighting it," said Scott Robinson, co-owner of Wilbur's Total Beverage in Fort Collins, summing up the general attitude. "We'll make more money being open seven days a week."

Robinson also conceded that support of the Sunday sales legislation could help liquor store owners head off the grocery store bill.

"We'd rather be meeting the needs of the consumer when that one shows up," he said.

Yet, while the article talks about "convenience," jobs, and revenues, not once does the article mention the central issue: individual rights. Stores and their customers have the right to do business on mutually agreeable terms, without political interference. Of course, Democrats are afraid to talk about individual rights in the economic sphere, because then they might actually have to take economic liberty seriously.

Jesus, Taxes, and the Media

January 25, 2008

On January 24, The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_8059497) published a story by Electa Draper titled, "Psalm 1040: Prof urges a fairer tax." The teaser line states, "Government, she says, fails to follow the Scriptures' lead in helping the poor and the kids." The story reviews the ideas of "Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama law professor with credentials in taxes and theology." It begins:

How would Jesus tax?

It wouldn't be the way Colorado, the 49 other states and the federal government do it, says Susan Pace Hamill, a University of Alabama law professor with credentials in taxes and theology.

Despite Scripture principles, state and federal tax systems burden the poor and relieve the rich, she says.

Jesus paid taxes, told followers to give the government its due, broke bread with tax collectors and chose one, Matthew, to be an apostle, according to the New Testament.

This story is odd for a couple of reasons.

First, it is an advocacy piece masquerading as a news story. Why isn't this on the editorial pages? Notably, Draper does not interview a single religious critic of Hamill's thesis. (While many religious conservatives would agree to reduce taxes for the poor, they would not agree to raise taxes on others.) Surely there is no shortage of religious conservatives in this state. Nor does Draper interview a non-religious leftist, or a non-religious advocate of low taxes. Does The Denver Post's news side really see its proper role as advocating particular religious doctrines?

Second, the story is old. It contains no news "hook." Moreover, it is derivative. For example, on August 1, 2006, the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal published a (http://www.pennbpc.org/hawkes.php) similar story by Jeff Hawkes titled, "Who Would Jesus Tax?" Draper's story discusses taxes generally and sites some figures about Colorado, but it is not based on any Colorado-specific event or personality. Why is this news?

Hamill's thesis is essentially egalitarianism draped in religious cloth.

Nevertheless, Hamill does make an interesting point:

Among Colorado's offenses is that the state makes its lowest-earning 20 percent of the population pay 9.9 percent of their income in taxes, while the top 1 percent of wealthy Coloradans pay 6.1 percent of their income.

"The poor and middle class pay almost four times the tax, proportionately, that the rich people pay in Colorado," Hamill said.

Apparently, Hamill's figure of "four times" is based on the fact that the middle class vastly outnumber the rich. I'll accept her figures at face value, unless someone can point to an error in them.

I don't think anybody would argue that the poor should pay a greater percent of their income in taxes than the wealthy pay. For example, in 2004 I (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/041504.html) wrote:

I have a simple proposal that should gain bi-partisan support... Exempt everyone making less than $20,000 per year from nearly all taxes.

If you make less than $20,000 in a calendar year, after expenses, I propose you don't have to file income taxes at all. The burden of proof then lies with tax collectors to prove you earned more than that. You don't have to pay federal or state income tax. If you're in retail sales, you don't have to collect state or local sales tax. If you own property, you don't have to pay property tax.

You also don't have to pay Social Security tax. Why should a poor working family be forced to pay a retired millionaire to play golf in Hawaii?

However, I did not propose taxing others at a higher rate: "I would favor reducing government spending by the amount lost in tax revenues." Indeed, I would lower taxes on everyone, across the board. But my position does not depend on any religious doctrine: it depends upon a theory of individual rights, rooted in the objective requirements of human life. (For one source of empirical support for the view that economic liberty brings prosperity, see The Heritage Foundation's (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/index.cfm) Index of Economic Freedom.)

But which is the more faithful interpretation of Christianity? That of religious conservatives, who at times support free markets and low taxes, or that of religious egalitarians? As Paul Hsieh (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/01/huck-army.html) reviews, the religious right increasingly adopts the welfare agenda of the left. What defines the religious right is not a commitment to free markets—far from it—but rather a commitment to more political controls over our personal lives.

Bitch-Slapping Caldara

January 25, 2008

The Denver Post's PoliticsWest (http://www.politicswest.com/18093/progressnowaction_targets_denver_show_host_caldara) reported on January 24:

ProgressNowAction, a left-leaning advocacy group based in Denver, is promoting an online effort to pressure advertisers to stop supporting the KOA 850-AM radio show of Jon Caldara because Caldara used the term "bitch-slapped" on the air.

"The term itself is demeaning and offensive to women," said Michael Huttner, executive director of ProgressNowAction. "It's the kind of thing that minimizes the severity of domestic violence. We think it shouldn't be used in any context."

ProgressNowAction and Colorado Media Matters "must be working together to bring hyper-sensitivity to a new level," Caldara said in an e-mail to PoliticsWest. ...

On the air, Caldara played a snippet of the Democratic candidate debate interaction between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in which Obama said, "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," a reference to Bill Clinton.

Caldara termed Obama's response "a spectacular line" and goes on to ask [guest Ann] Coulter, "Was it fair to say this woman got bitch-slapped tonight?" . . .

The ProgressNowAction online statement, titled "Tell Jon Caldara's sponsors: don't pay for hate," was also e-mailed to 3,000 people, according to Huttner, who said they have received 250 responses.

I asked my resident expert on women, my wife, whether she thought the term "bitch-slap" is offensive. She replied, "No; I think I've used it myself."

Obviously, Huttner is not serious in claiming that the term "bitch-slap" "shouldn't be used in any context." (http://www.progressnowaction.org/) ProgressNowAction.org refers on its main web page to "Caldara's 'bitch-slapped' comment." Apparently, Huttner thinks that using the term in this context is just fine. Furthermore, the (http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/brittneywilburn/CqkC) post by Brittney Wilburn uses the term "bitch-slapped" three times:

Caldara's "bitch-slapped" comment
By Brittney—Jan 24th, 2008 at 3:20 pm MST

Earlier this week, John Caldara, a local right-wing host on Denver's 850 KOA radio, discussed the presidential candidate debates. During his talk, he asked his guest on-air whether it "was it fair to say" that Senator Clinton (NY) "got bitch-slapped tonight?" (The Jon Caldara Show, Newsradio 850 KOA, evening broadcast 1/21/2008)

Did he really say "bitch slapped"? I know he's a talk show host. I know he pushes the envelope. But bitch slapped? He went too far. This comment rivals Imus' "nappy headed hoes" comment.

We, as Coloradans should be outraged. And we should not stand for this hateful commentary.

Not only was this comment demeaning to women, it minimizes the severity of domestic violence women across Colorado experience.

Click on the link to sign the petition urging advertisers on his show to pull their adds and calling on Caldara to apologize.

Okay. The term "bitch-slap" is nothing like the term "nappy headed hoes." Coloradans should not be outraged. They should chuckle at Brittney's ridiculous hysteria.

If the people at ProgressNowAction are not a bunch of damned hypocrites, as I suspect they are, then they will also immediately demand that all advertisers with the left-leaning Westword withdraw their advertising dollars. For Westword has published the term "bitch-slap" not once, but twelve times (that I could find). Shouldn't ProgressNowAction display twelve times the outrage toward Westword? Or is it that Huttner and Wilburn just hate Caldara, and they don't really care about the term "bitch-slap?"

Following are all twelve of Westword's use of the term "bitch-slap:"

1. (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2006/12/anything_but_melo.php) December 19, 2006— "Okay, it's a bit far-fetched, and in the heat of the moment against the Knicks last Saturday, when Melo decided he would open-palm bitch-slap Mardy Collins in the jaw, then backpedal across the court, the odds that Melo was thinking about A.I. are about as slim as Nene hitting a three-pointer."

2. (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2007/03/a_world_of_hurt.php) March 8, 2007 -- "I mean, Brooke is making herself look like the dumbass here, no question about it—but I would bitch-slap my friends if any of them ever said anything remotely like that to a complete stranger."

3. (http://www.westword.com/2006-08-10/music/fight-to-the-def/full) August 10, 2006 -- "First off, any band that has the balls to let an illiterate grade-schooler name its group after a handicapped jungle animal has the chutzpah necessary to bitch-slap Steve Perry and company back to their mommies' open arms."

4. (http://www.westword.com/2000-12-21/film/no-box-of-chocolates/full) December 21, 2000 -- "Unlike the dishonest tripe of Gump, The Crow offered hard, direct sensuality, inspiring a hopeful reverie wherein Lee's undead warrior might steal into Zemeckis's crisp, digital world to unleash his dark rage upon Hanks's little retarded monkey. Or at least bitch-slap him."

5. (http://www.westword.com/1998-07-02/music/playlist/full) July 2, 1998 -- "Whereas the charts are no longer dominated by members of the Bitch-Slap-My-Ho brigade (they've been replaced by purveyors of innocuous R&B, Brandy style), the mega-sales enjoyed by Master P and others suggests that there are still a lot of folks out there who feel that a song's no good unless it's about drive-bys or downing forties."

6. (http://www.westword.com/1999-11-25/music/jawbreaker/full) April 30, 1996 -- "In one backhanded bitch slap, Schwarzenbach knocked the Sid Vicious-inspired snarls off a generation of 'punk-rockers' who, mimicking their favorite Offspring and Green Day videos, were easy to spot as they all stood in line at the local Walgreens with hair products in hand."

7. (http://www.westword.com/2006-06-01/music/neil-young/full) June 1, 2006 -- "Fresh off a brain aneurysm, Neil Young gives the right wing an earful, clobbering our befuddled Decider-in-Chief with a righteous bitch slap that exceeds forty minutes."

8. (http://www.westword.com/2001-08-09/music/cousteau/full) August 9, 2001 -- "A lush, languid bitch-slap in the face of perky teen pop idols everywhere, this CD shimmers most menacingly when the subterranean stylings of singer Liam McKahey meet the literate (at least by commercial-radio standards) lyrics of multi-instrumentalist/producer Davey Ray Moor."

9. (http://www.westword.com/2006-04-20/dining/the-name-game/full) April 20, 2006 -- "I don't go to Pete's Kitchen anymore; fighting my way through all the club kids and drunks and drag queens and rock stars has become more of a hassle than a Pete's breakfast burrito is worth. Tom's, on the other hand, remains a 24/7/365 roller coaster of the human experience, a shot of street life and nightlife and highlife and lowlife all rolled into one insomniac bitch-slap."

10. (http://www.westword.com/2000-01-27/film/valley-of-the-dull/full) January 27, 2000 -- "Perhaps Rudnick, who wrote In & Out, intended the portrayals of Mansfield and Hastings/Korda as some sort of in-joke, a backhanded bitch slap: They're two of the gayest straight characters in the history of filmdom."

11. (http://www.westword.com/2001-07-05/news/letters-to-the-editor/full) July 5, 2001 -- "The focus isn't Manson, you morons, it's the schools your precious "overachiever" children attend. You're just picking on Manson because he's an easy target. You feel that if the world were a certain way and only "positive" messages were sent out to the kids, then everything would be perfect. What you need is a bitch-slap of reality."

12. (http://www.westword.com/2003-04-24/news/confessions-of-an-ephedrine-eater/full) April 24, 2003 -- "I'm not saying that any of A Vitamin Store's customers have ever or will ever purchase ephedrine with the intent of doing anything other than treating their asthma, because if I did, Westword's libel lawyer would bitch-slap me."

Uh-oh: It looks like ProgressNowAction is also going to have to put an end to the left-leaning Boulder Weekly (for which I used to write). That paper has published the term "bitch-slap" four times:

1. 2007 -- "They can technologically bitch-slap your computer and make it an offer it can't refuse."
[Dead link: http://www.boulderweekly.com/?site_id=619&page_id=9494&id_sub=9494]

2. October 17, 2002 -- "Enter sex columnist Dan Savage, a gay man who, you may recall, licked his way into the national spotlight after infiltrating Gary Bauer's 2000 presidential primary campaign. Savage calls Skipping his 'Bork-Bennett-bitch slap'."
[Dead link: http://archive.boulderweekly.com/101702/uncovered.html]

3. October 17, 2002 -- "Three different bars-two on the main floor and one in the upstairs lounge-stand ready to bitch-slap your thirst straight into submission."
[Dead link: http://archive.boulderweekly.com/101702/barfly.html]

4. December 22, 2005 -- "The Chargers looked unbeatable in last week's Bitch-Slap in the 'Nap, but they fired all their guns in their history-making effort."
[Dead link: http://archive.boulderweekly.com/122205/calendar.html]

Unfortunately, it gets even worse. ProgressNowAction will also have to shut down the left-leaning Colorado Springs Independent, which also has published the term "bitch-slap" four times:

1. February 24, 2005 -- "Youd think he would have learned his lesson in 2003 when Gangs of New York was nominated, and he and Harvey were bitch-slapped by the Academy for not only dragging poor old Robert Wise into their over-the-top Oscar politicking, but then deceiving voters by having a Miramax publicist ghost-write a praiseful column on Scorsese that appeared under the beloved wrinklys byline."
[Dead link: http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A19890]

2. July 22, 2004 -- "In the context of today's starkly polarized electorate—where pollsters claim only about 18 percent remain persuadable-- a book that offers eloquent bitch slaps to everyone from milquetoast Democrats (paging Tom Daschle!) to robotic radicals (Chomsky anyone?) seems destined to be pulped in the rush toward partisan fervor."
[Dead link: http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A12286]

3. October 10, 2002 -- "Bork-Bennett Bitch Slap... Savage, editor of Seattle's alternative newsweekly The Stranger, calls Skipping Toward Gomorrah his 'Bork-Bennett-bitch slap'."
[Dead link: http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A6779]

4. March 22, 2002 -- "Willis showed Vanilla the dark side of show business, and the dark side of his hand, as he repeatedly bitch-slapped Ice's grill."
[Dead link: http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A5230]

For kicks, I did a quick Google search of "bitch-slap." Among the hits are HollywoodBitchSlap.com, Bitchslap Industries, Bitchslap the band, Bitchslap Magazine, and Bitchslap! the DJ. In all, 125,000 hits come up.

But is "bitch-slap" really offensive to women? I checked the Urban Dictionary,, and here's the (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bitch-slap) main definition:

The kind of slap a pimp gives to his whores to keep them in line or punish them. However, it is most commonly used to describe an insulting slap from one man to another, as if the slapper is treating the slappee as his bitch.

And Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitch-slap) offers a definition from Webster:

Definition: to slap someone with an open hand, esp. in an attempt to put them in their place or cause humiliation
Example: Corporate America was bitch-slapped by the stock market.
Etymology: from black English, slapping a person as a pimp would slap a prostitute
Usage: vulgar slang; bitch-slapped, bitch-slapping; also used figuratively

It is clear, then, that originally the term often was used in an offensive way toward women, but it was not always so used. It is also clear that, today, the term is mostly used in a way that isn't offensive toward women and that has nothing to do with women. Caldara's usage of the term is totally in line with the way that Colorado's leading left-leaning independent newspapers use the term.

I trust that ProgressNowAction is now more fully aware of the meaning of the term bitch-slap.

Bitch-Slap Update

January 25, 2008

Welcome, readers of the Rocky Mountain News. This afternoon, reporter Lynn Bartels quoted me in an article about the dispute between ProgressNow and Jon Caldara regarding Caldara's on-air use of the term "bitch-slap."

Earlier, Bartels wrote an article giving the basic facts of the case [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/25/caldara-demeaned-women-group-says/]. She pointed out that Bill Menezes, editorial director of Colorado Media Matters, first complained about Caldara's remark. That organization posted its critique of Caldara on January 22 [dead link: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200801230002].

Last night, in my post, "Bitch-Slapping Caldara" [at FreeColorado.com], I pointed out that the newspapers Westword, Boulder Weekly, and Colorado Springs Independent have used the term "bitch-slap" twenty times among them.

Bartels picked up on this point in her follow-up article [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/25/bitch-slap-flap-rages/]:

But blogger Ari Armstrong noted today that three alternative newspapers have used the term at least 20 times between them.

The phrase has been used in Westword, the Boulder Weekly and the Colorado Springs Independent in stories ranging from sports to restaurant reviews to music reviews.

"ProgressNow is clearly going after Caldara because they don't like Caldara," said Armstrong, who lives in Westminster. "It has nothing to do with the term."

Moreover, Bartels called up Westword:

Westword's editor, Patricia Calhoun, noted the newspaper appears to have used the phrase 12 times in 12 years.

"But I did add bitch slap to a story in next week's edition," she said, with a laugh. "Frankly, I don't have a problem with the term. In the proper context, sometimes bitch slap is all you can say."

[Saturday, January 26 update: Bartel's reworked article appears in today's Rocky. [Dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/26/liberal-group-fickle-on-objecting-to-bitch-slap/.]]

If ProgressNow wishes to continue its witch-hunt against Caldara, I've found yet another target for them: Al Franken. According to (http://www.democrats.com/node/8851) Democrats.com, Franken makes the following remark in his book, The Truth, With Jokes:

These attacks worked on two levels. The obvious level was the literal. If Kerry thought terrorism was just a nuisance, then he was obviously the wrong man to lead the fight against it. But there was another level. The subtext of the constant attacks on Kerry's toughness was that the Bush team was tough and Kerry wasn't. It's what blogger Joshua Micah Marshall called the Republicans' Bitch-Slap Theory of Electoral Politics. By slapping Kerry around continuously, the President was sending America the message that "Kerry is my bitch."

Yet, even after I pointed out the hypocrisy of going after Caldara while giving left-leaners a pass, Menezes was undeterred. In a (http://www.politicswest.com/18093/progressnowaction_targets_denver_show_host_caldara) comment posted with The Denver Post,Menezes argues:

The real question is why his bosses at Clear Channel, Lee Larsen and Kris Olinger, believe that Caldara's approach represents a responsible use of the public airwaves. Perhaps Ms. Olinger or Mr. Larsen (or even Caldara) would like to speak in person to a domestic violence prevention group and explain why the use of terms such as "bitch-slapped" when applied to a verbal attack on a female, or "fiscal date rape" when applied to a political dispute about taxes, are appropriate and responsible ways of promoting opinion in the public debate.

Perhaps Caldara's advertisers such as Tom Shane would like to explain to his female customers why he believes it is appropriate for him to patronize a program whose host blithely promotes abusive terminology that specifically targets women.

No, the real question is, why is Bill Menezes such a hypocrite?

Menezes is wrong in claiming that "the term-bitch-slapped literally refers to how a pimp might assault a prostitute to keep her in line." It "literally" refers to no such thing. As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/bitch-slapping-caldara.html) pointed out, "It is clear, then, that originally the term often was used in an offensive way toward women, but it was not always so used. It is also clear that, today, the term is mostly used in a way that isn't offensive toward women and that has nothing to do with women." If by "literally" Menezes means "most consistent with original usage," then the term "bitch-slap" refers to striking a female dog. But clearly the meaning has evolved over time. To take another example of a term that has changed in meaning over time, the term "gay" was once taken to be demeaning toward homosexuals, but now homosexuals tend to adopt the term with pride.

To speculate a bit, I think that one reason the term "bitch-slap" has gained wider usage is that it does not make clear who is doing the slapping. Originally, the term usually seemed to mean "slapping a bitch." But clearly today many people think of it as a "bitch"—an aggressive person—doing the slapping. As is obvious by a trip through any T-shirt shop at the mall, many women have adopted the word "bitch" as a term of empowerment, to mean something like, "I'm a bitch, I can take care of myself, so don't mess with me." "Bitch-slap," in the sense of a "bitch" slapping somebody, is supported by a (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bitch-slap) secondary definition from Urban Dictionary: "a method of assualt, used by females."

Maybe now we can be finished with this issue.

. . . Or maybe not. 5:15 p.m. update: An anonymous reader sent me some additional examples of left-wingers who have used the term "bitch slap."

(http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04005.html) James Carville: "A lot of Democrats on the Hill say, look, you guys come up here, and you ask us to do this, and we do it. And then there's nothing behind us. And everything the Republicans do, they got that—the Wall Street Journal, talk radio, et cetera. We need guys like you guys [Buzzflash] who are doing really good work to, in essence, you know, bitch slap the bitches, and say: Look, here's what you can do, and now here are some things you can do."

(http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=70586) Randi Rhodes of Air America Radio: "Bush takes a bitch-slap, Backs down on wage-slavery."

(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/9/114728/3879/794/382625) "Wilbur" from Daily Kos: "We are being bitch slapped big time... Yes, the lefty blogosphere is being bitch slapped and it is going to go on for at least the next week, and I believe it is an important moment in the development of netroots politics."

(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003295.php) John Marshall: "Let's call it the Republicans' Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics. It goes something like this. On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry's military service record and label him a liar. But that's only part of what's going on."

(http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/politico_gets_in_last_minute_bitch_slap_at_bob_latta) Buckeye State Blog: "Politico gets in last minute bitch slap at Bob Latta."

(http://www.theleftshue.com/2007/11/house-dems-bitch-slap-kucinich-and.html) The Left Shue (An Outlet for Progressives Who Are Working for Change): "House Dems Bitch Slap Kucinich and the Majority of Americans."

(http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20060713/the_pelosi_bitch_slap) The Agonist: "The Pelosi Bitch Slap."

Thanks, anonymous reader. The people at ProgressNowAction really have their work cut out from them, if they're going to purge the English language of the term "bitch slap."

Also, thanks to the crew over at FaceTheState.com, who (http://www.facethestate.com/node/4996) pointed to my original blog entry on the matter. (I do have a minor correction: I'm a former writer for Boulder Weekly and a former libertarian.)

Snowboarding with Jesus

January 26, 2008

Speaking of The Denver Post's (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/jesus-taxes-and-media.html) religious news, on January 25 the paper also published, on its front cover, a story about Christian snowboarders. The (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8071787) story, "X Games competitors ride with Jesus," by Jason Blevins, contains the following line: "My best times worshiping the Lord are when I'm snowboarding."

This is not straight news; it is closer to religious preaching. I have to wonder about some of the editorial decisions over at the Post. However, as I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/12/religious-mountain-news.html) noted, other papers also seem to be increasing their gratuitous mentions of religion. Whether or not this is intentional policy, the trend seems to reflect the general rise of evangelical Christianity in America.

Blevins's story is interesting, though, in how it contrasts Christianity with its alleged opposite. Except for Christians, the article suggests, the "world of extreme sports" is "inherently hedonistic," a "selfish sport" in the words of one snowboarder. Christians, though, "eschew the party scene." Non-Christians, the article quotes other Christian snowboarders, are "empty inside" and "hollow." Moreover, Christian snowboarders "have this added confidence."

In the terms of (http://www.peikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff, then, Christianity, a form of religious "Misintegration" (or system-building based on supernaturalism and detached from the real world) is offered as the only alternative to nihilistic "Disintegration." A non-religious morality of strong, life-supporting values—the alternative of "Integration" based on the facts of reality—is not considered.

In an advertisement for his book, Loving Life (which I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/12/biddlerev.html) reviewed), (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/) Craig Biddle offers a succinct summary of this third alternative:

The Atheists' Missing Link: Loving Life by Craig Biddle demonstrates that morality is a matter not of divine relevation or social convention or personal opinion—but, rather, of the factual requirements of human life and happiness.

Maybe someday the Post will consider such ideas to be worthy of attention.

ProgressNowAction.org Used "Bitch Slap" in '07

January 27, 2008

ProgressNowAction has lambasted 850 radio host Jon Caldara for using the term "bitch-slap" on air. Michael Huttner, executive director of ProgressNow, told Lynn Bartels of The Rocky Mountain News, "If he doesn't apologize, we will send an e-mail to tens of thousands more people to call 850 KOA's advertisers and demand that they not be associated with Caldara and his shows demeaning women." [Dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/26/liberal-group-fickle-on-objecting-to-bitch-slap/]

However, Huttner's own organization's web page published the term "bitch slap" just last year. An entry dated September 9, 2007, states [dead link: http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CqvK]:

Biggest laugh line: "Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war." (Want to bet?) They also bitch slap Petraeus for his complicity before the election in '04. They stop short of calling that a war crime, allow me to do that for them, besides, being a general IS a war crime, especially in the United States if you have kept your mouth shut for the last six years.

A screen capture of the relevant part of that web page has been archived at FreeColorado.com.

On Thursday evening, I pointed out [at FreeColorado.com] that the Colorado newspapers Westword, Boulder Weekly, and Colorado Springs Independent have used the term "bitch-slap" twenty times among them. On Friday I discovered that various other left-wing commentators have also used the term, including James Carville and Al Franken.

Now that I have also documented that Huttner's own ProgressNowAction.org used the term "bitch slap" just last year, Huttner's only responsible course at this point is to apologize to Caldara, to 850 KOA, and to Caldara's listeners and advertisers.

The Catholic Vote

January 28, 2008

Electa Draper, who (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/jesus-taxes-and-media.html) wrote a story about why Christians should impose more "progressive" taxation, also wrote a story (http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_7371432) several weeks ago about the Catholic opposition to various civil liberties. The story begins:

Colo. churches fight "evil" in voting booth
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/05/2007 06:11:08 AM MST

Catholic voters can disagree on issues such as immigration policy and health-care reform, but when it comes to the fundamental right to life, church leaders allow no wiggle room in the voting booth.

All three Colorado dioceses and their lobbying arm, the Colorado Catholic Conference, are spelling out to more than 660,000 Catholics in the state what they believe faithful citizenship looks like.

The first thing to notice is that Draper, a news reporter, refers to "the fundamental right to life," which in this context refers to the alleged rights of a fertilized egg, as though that were just a noncontroversial news fact.

Here's the heart of the piece:

"Some things are intrinsically evil and must be opposed," said Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., at the Gospel of Life conference in Denver in October.

These evil acts, in a guide adopted by Colorado and Kansas Catholic bishops, include elective abortion, euthanasia, destruction of embryos in stem-cell research, cloning humans and, though not an equivalent evil, same-sex marriage.

These things are "intrinsically evil" says Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is wrong.

The view that all "elective abortions" are evil arises from the Christian doctrine that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. The Catholic position would outlaw even the "morning after" pill, when the embryo consists of a bunch of undifferentiated cells. (Of course, many Catholics would also try to outlaw contraception, except that such an effort would never fly in a nation in which most Protestants find no problem with birth control.) The Catholic position would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape and incest. And what counts as an "elective abortion" likely would be narrowly restricted, resulting in more deaths of women.

The Catholic view on stem-cell research derives from the view on abortion. The position against euthanasia—and, indeed, all suicide—even when somebody is in horrific pain, arises from the Catholic view that God forbids suicide. (This doctrine is helpful in stopping Christians from killing themselves in order to enter into Heavenly bliss.) And of course the Catholic position against gay marriage arises from the Biblical claims that homosexuality is sinful.

In all of these cases, the attempt is to impose Christian theology through the political system. (Of course, various Catholics disagree with various aspects of these Catholic views.) The result would be the profound violation of the actual "fundamental right to life" of women and the ill, as well as the right to contract by homosexuals.

Free Speech and Offensive Speech

January 28, 2008

Today, Mark Wolf over at Rocky Talk Live picked up the story about how ProgressNowAction.org used the term "bitch slap" last year, before the organization went after Jon Caldara for using the same term [dead link: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/rockytalklive/archives/2008/01/progressnow_bitchslapped_befor.html]. This morning, I also briefly appeared on Peter Boyles's show on 630 KHOW to discuss the story. I wanted to elaborate on a few of the remarks I made to Boyles.

Free speech can only be understood in a legitimate and coherent way in the context of property rights. Let's take some examples to clarify this point.

People have the right to say "bitch slap" all they want, within the context of individual rights. If you want, you can start a newspaper called "Bitch Slap News." You can start a "bitch slap" blog in which you write nothing but the term. You can wander around the streets mumbling "bitch slap" to yourself. However, your right to say "bitch slap" cannot interfere with somebody else's rights.

For example, you cannot come over to my house and spray paint the word "bitch slap" on my door. Nor can you burn the term into my grass. Nor can you barge into my home, uninvited, and start saying "bitch slap." You cannot walk into a business and start shouting the term "bitch slap." You cannot walk into a newspaper office and demand that the paper publish the term.

Just as you have the right to set speech policies within your own home, so businesses have the right to set speech policies within the business, subject to contractual arrangements. For example, if you work for a newspaper, you do NOT have the right to publish the term "bitch slap," or "F*** Bush," in violation of the paper's policies. (Many papers have a policy against publishing the "F-word," but no paper that I know of has a policy against publishing the term "bitch slap." Indeed, I suspect that the term "bitch slap" has been published more frequently during the past few days than ever before in the term's history.) My beef with J. David McSwane, the college student who published the "F*** Bush" headline in his school newspaper, was that he flagrantly violated his paper's stated policies and then tried to claim that he had a "free speech" right to do so.

I can guarantee you that, had McSwane called Condoleezza Rice the "N-word," he would have been gone, gone, gone. I'm not sure whether the FCC can sanction a radio station for using the "N-word;" I doubt it. Nevertheless, any radio host or DJ who called Barack Obama the "N-word" would be ejected immediately. And this is entirely proper. Even though the radio waves are today "public"—i.e., nationally controlled by the FCC—properly radio waves (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/abolish-fcc.html) should be private property. And the owners of a radio station, the same as the owners of a newspaper, should have the political right to set speech policy for the station. Most stations would voluntarily and properly prohibit the use of the "F-word" and "N-word" on air. I doubt many stations would ban the use of the term "bitch slap." However, if (for example) a Christian station wants to prohibit the use of such terms, then that is the right of the station's owners.

Of course, if ProgressNow wishes to publicly condemn Caldara for saying "bitch slap," that is the right of ProgressNow. They also have the right to complain to Caldara's advertisers. However, as ProgressNow may be learning, just because you have a right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. You have the right to drink a quart of Vodka, but it's a pretty stupid thing to do. You have the right to slam somebody for using a term that your own web page has used, but it's a pretty idiotic thing to do. But if ProgressNow wants to spend its resources to destroy its own credibility, that's fine by me. The rest of us have the right to subject the organization to the public mockery that it has so richly earned.

Peikoff's Eighth Podcast

January 28, 2008

Leonard Peikoff has published his eighth podcast. Here I briefly summarize the questions and Peikoff's basic answers (though my summaries should not be taken as substitutes for the podcast).

1. How does the role of consciousness in activating the body fit with the Objectivist view of the "primacy of existence?" Peikoff notes that the mind and body constitute "one total organism." The mind has a unique relation to the body that it does not have with external existence. Thus, for example, we can decide to move our hand. However, even in the body "existence has primacy;" what we can will our body to do "depends on physical conditions."

2. What is the source of the music played at the start of the podcast? I won't spoil Peikoff's story by summarizing it. He also tells the story in Leonard Peikoff: In His Own Words, which I was able to watch at a friend's house. It's a fun and informative documentary.

3. Is there such a thing as "Objectivist music?" Peikoff answers no. Objectivism is a philosophy, and particular concrete applications cannot be derived from philosophy. Peikoff argues that even Atlas Shrugged is not "Objectivist art," though of course it has an Objectivist theme and it reflects the Romantic view of free will.

4. Should the definition of "plot" contain "conflict?" Peikoff replies that, while conflict is implicit in the definition, it is not an essential part of it.

5. Should one put off artistic creation (such as writing a novel) in the midst of great emotional upheaval? Peikoff answers, "Within limits, yes, put it off." He discusses some examples and offers some qualifications.

Morris on Obama

January 29, 2008

Father Jonathan Morris (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326070,00.html) complains that Barack Obama rejects "some of the most basic principles of Christian morality." Morris is most concerned about abortion. Morris writes:

Examine carefully the religious language he employs: "I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it. But what I believe is that women do not make these decisions casually, and that they struggle with it fervently with their pastors, with their spouses, with their doctors."

Is Sen. Obama suggesting that Christians who consider "the moral elements of the decision" and who "struggle with it fervently with their pastors" may be in line with God's will by deciding that abortion is the right choice? I think he is, or as he would probably say, "the right choice for them."

Sen. Obama goes even further with this creative mix of religious talk and completely subjective morality. He suggests women "pray about" whether to have an abortion—as if God might whisper his approval. ("Bill Clinton's Analogy Revisited: Barack Obama vs. Jesse Jackson," January 28, 2008)

Morris's analysis is interesting for several reasons. First, it is obvious that Obama is restrained by his party in pushing his religious agenda, at least in the area of personal choice (as opposed to the economic arena, where leftists seem eager to adopt religious language to support their economic controls).

Second, what most concerns Morris is Obama's support for legal abortions, not Obama's faith-based socialism. In general, the religious right makes little effort to defend economic liberty—and more often openly assaults it.

Third, Morris is absolutely correct about Obama's double standards. Notice that Obama does not reject the religious doctrine that an embryo has the same rights as a person because God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Nor does Obama endorse the absolute moral right of women to control their own bodies and futures by getting an abortion. Instead, Obama tempers religious doctrine with a pragmatic subjectivism, as Morris argues. This demonstrates that, just as the religious right cannot, when pushed, defend economic liberty with any conviction, so the religious left cannot, when pushed, defend liberty in the personal sphere.

In any contest between the religious right and the religious left, both sides will tend to win on their pet issues. The religious right maintains an enduring moral fervor for outlawing (and thus imposing criminal penalties for) abortion, while the religious left maintains an enduring moral fervor for forcibly redistributing wealth and controlling the economy. Both sides will tend to "compromise" by eliminating liberty in both the economic and personal spheres.

Google Ads on Ann Coulter

January 29, 2008

As I've pointed out, Google's AdSense program requires, "Sites displaying Google ads may not include . . . advocacy against any individual, group, or organization." I just checked in with Google, and the restriction remains. However, I have since found definitive proof that Google doesn't take its own policies seriously. I was glancing at Ann Coulter's >web page (don't worry—I don't make a habit of it), and I noticed "Ads by Google."

Is there any person in America who "advocates against" individuals, groups, and organizations more forcefully than Ann Coulter? Clearly, if Google took its own stated policies seriously, it would not allow Coulter to display "Ads by Google."

But here's the kicker: Google's own ad "advocates against" a particular individual. Note that Google's system selects the content of the ad. An ad that appears on Coulter's web page states, "Who Can Defeat Hillary?" In other words, the ad includes "advocacy against" Clinton.

If Google flagrantly violates its own stated policy for ads, then clearly that particular policy is meaningless. However, if, as one of the comments on an earlier post alleges, Google has pulled its ads from another web page because of that page's arguments, is Google opening itself up to potential legal action?

"Why I Am a Liberal"

January 29, 2008

Recently I ordered the works of Theognis, the greek poet. I sent over the following lines to Jon Caldara, as I thought he'd appreciate them after getting hammered by the hypocritical ProgressNow:

No one has ever lived or yet will live
To please all men he meets before he dies.
Even the son of Kronos, Zeus, who rules
Men and immortals, can't please every one.

I also ordered Robert Browning's My Last Duchess and Other Poems. The final poem in the book caught my eye: "Why I Am a Liberal:"

"Why?" Because all I haply can and do,
All that I am now, all I hope to be,
Whence comes it save from fortune setting free
Body and soul the purpose to pursue,
God traced for both? If fetters, not a few,
Of prejudice, convention, fall from me,
These shall I bid men—each in his degree
Also God-guided—bear, and gayly too?
But little do or can the best of us:
That little is achieved thro' Liberty.
Who then dares hold, emancipated thus,
His fellow shall continue bound? not I,
Who live, love, labour freely, nor discuss
A brother's right to freedom. That is "Why."

The poem was written in 1885. Here's my simplified prose interpretation of the poem: "I am a liberal because my happiness and my ability to create my own future depend upon my liberty of conscience and action. I am a liberal because I have discarded prejudice and illegitimate conventions, which I encourage others also to discard. What I have achieved, I have achieved because and to the extent that I am free. I will therefore also fight for the liberty of my fellow man."

Those who call themselves "liberals" today bear little resemblance to the liberal of Browning's poem. Today, "liberals" want first and foremost to impose more political controls on economic action. As we have seen this past week, at their worst, "liberal progressives" devolve to the left-wing thought-police. Though there are exceptions, all too often modern "liberals" are, in fact, anti-liberal in every essential.

Court Upholds Smoking Ban

January 29, 2008

This (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8109702) just in:

Appeals Court upholds smoking ban, DIA exemption
By Felisa Cardona
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/29/2008 11:55:10 AM MST

Colorado's smoking ban was upheld today by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel decided that the state's Clean Indoor Air Act did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution by providing exemptions to airport smoking areas. ...

"The district court concluded, and we agree, that the State of Colorado has offered a rational basis for its distinction between airport smoking concessions and the establishments owned, operated and or serviced by plaintiffs," the opinion says. DIA smokers ". . . have no options as to where they can smoke because they have no real opportunity or ability to travel to a location outside the DIA area."

That's too bad. However, the fundamental issue is not whether the smoking ban is applied equally, but that the smoking ban violates people's rights to control their own property and associate voluntarily. Subjecting everyone to injustice "equally" is hardly superior to subjecting only some people to injustice.

Averages and the Uninsured

January 29, 2008

A January 21 (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/medicine-high-costs-of-political.html) column by my dad and me states, "According to Lewin's figures, the uninsured as a group pay 45 percent of their costs, while private charity pays another 14 percent. Yet most of the uninsured pay all of their bills themselves."

In a January 29 (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080129/LETTERS/869560279/-1/OPINION) letter to the Free Press, D.D. Lewis of Clifton asks, "Aren't the two sentences mutually exclusive?" The answer is no.

Let's use a simplified example to make the point. Let us say that there are ten people without insurance. One person charges $55 worth of health care but does not pay. Nine people charge $5 each for health care, for a total of $45, and they all pay their bills. In this case, only 45 percent of the health charges have been paid by the uninsured "as a group," even though 90 percent of the uninsured have paid their own bills.

I have not seen a good estimate of the percent of the uninsured who pay their own bills, but I'm confident that "most" is an accurate description.

Bigotry in the Name of God

January 30, 2008

Hell does not exist, but the bigoted, despicable thug Fred Phelps, who protests homosexuality at the funerals of American soldiers and blames the nation's problems on homosexuality, would richly deserve a place there.

As Mike S. Adams (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/01/30/fred_phelps_goes_down_under) writes ("Fred Phelps Goes Down Under," January 30, 2008), recently Phelps wrote to the family of Heath Ledger, claiming that Ledger is burning in hell and asking how to disrupt the funeral.

Adams appropriately condemns Phelps. However, he (apparently) jokes that Phelps is also gay and that is why he is so angry; the truth is much uglier. For Adams to mock homosexuals in the same article that he condemns Phelps is tasteless, to put it mildly.

Taxes for God

January 30, 2008

Today's Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8113391) reports:

Religious groups feel bullied by proposal

A lawmaker says she's willing to discuss the bill dealing with employment discrimination.

By Electa Draper

The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 01/29/2008 11:28:19 PM MST

State Rep. Alice Madden said a flawed draft of a bill, meant to repair a 2007 statute dealing with employment discrimination, has given her a little taste of hellfire.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and Focus on the Family have attacked Madden's draft, which would prevent faith-based organizations that accept government funds from hiring people of a particular religion to carry out their charitable missions.

Archbishop Charles Chaput said the bill appeared to be an attempt "to bully religious groups out of the public square." ...

"This is not meant to change real-world behavior one iota," Madden said. "We are trying to make it clear that employers generally should not discriminate on the basis of religion. Clearly, there could be exceptions."

It is telling that Chaput regards your money as "the public square."

Chaput easily could resolve the issue by declining to take other people's money by force.

But, clearly, the Christian injunction against theft poses no theological challenge to the forcible redistribution of wealth, as some religious libertarians claim.

Gazette Slaps ProgressNow

January 30, 2008

Today's Colorado Springs Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/stun_32527___article.html/guns_caldera.html) editorialized against ProgressNow:

ProgressNowAction has organized a petition campaign to convince advertisers to boycott Jon Caldara's KOA radio talk show. . . .

As reported in the Rocky Mountain News, libertarian blogger Ari Armstrong found that three Front Range progressive newsweeklies—The Colorado Springs Independent, Westword and Boulder Weekly—routinely publish "bitch-slap." He even found "bitch-slap" on a ProgressNowAction blog.

None of this concerns leaders of ProgressNowAction, who offer no criticism of liberal journalists who use the term.

"We're much more concerned with what Caldara says," explained Bobby Clark, deputy director of ProgressNowAction, in an interview with The Gazette. "Caldara has a tremendous sphere of influence. He is a paid spokesman for the right."

So there you have it, in Clark's own words. They don't care if pundits on the left use "bitch-slap"—a common humorous slang—but they'll organize a boycott when a conservative says it.

That about summarizes the case. However, the Gazette points out something else that I had not heard and corrects ProgressNow's misinformation:

Clark blamed the Rocky Mountain News for "failing to disclose that Ari Armstrong is an employee of Caldara's Independence Institute. The story didn't tell you that, but it's a fact."

A fact? Hardly. Armstrong, a freelance writer, said he has volunteered articles to the Independence Institute on speculation, but the organization doesn't pay him.

I was paid by the Independence Institute for work on one paper in 2005 on a contract basis; never was I an "employee" of the Institute. Beyond that, I've written various articles for the Institute on a strictly voluntary basis. But the claim is typical of the left, which, as the heir of Marx, holds that ideas are the products of one's material conditions. Of course, the left never thinks to apply such standards to itself. If ProgressNow wishes to get uptight about my casual relationship with the Independence Institute—which, by the way, has nothing to do with Caldara's radio show—then, by the same standard, mightn't we ask whether ProgressNow is giving Westword a pass for using the term "bitch slip" twelve times because Michael Huttner of ProgressNow once worked as an intern for Westword? But I don't buy such claims on either side. ProgressNow is merely trying to weasel its way out of its hypocritical stance by attacking the messenger.

Cost-Shifting and the Uninsured

January 30, 2008

You don't "fix" the problem of medical cost-shifting by expanding it.

Today the Rocky Mountain News published a Speakout by Linda Gorman and me about health policy. Following are some excerpts [dead link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/30/speakout-a-very-costly-health-care-solution/]:

SPEAKOUT: A very costly health-care solution
By Linda Gorman and Ari Armstrong
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

. . . In fact, the commission's recommendations likely will shift more costs onto those who already have insurance. Along with the individual mandate, the commission recommends large subsidies for those whom the commission considers too poor to purchase the insurance it says they should have. . . . The commission would also increase cost-shifting by forcing many more people into Medicaid. . . .

A Jan. 8 article from The Denver Post claims that "Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance."

The article attributes the number to state Rep. Anne McGihon, who said that the figure comes from Partnership for a Healthy Colorado. Partnership for a Healthy Colorado, in turn, says it got the figure from Families USA, which published a paper in 2005. That paper's estimates were unable to accurately predict the percentage of uninsured residents in Colorado. The paper also grossly overestimated at least some costs of uncompensated care.

The Lewin Group, the modeling firm hired by the commission to collect information about Colorado, reported [that] . . . uncompensated costs [for the uninsured], the ones that are not paid by any identifiable source, total $239 million. . . .

To "fix" the problem of $239 million in cost-shifting, the commission proposes to increase health spending in Colorado by more than $3 billion, funded with an income tax increase of $800 million to $1.8 billion, new taxes on various politically incorrect types of food and drink, and an increase in the cigarette tax. . . .

Linda Gorman, a senior fellow with the Independence Institute, serves on the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform. Ari Armstrong writes for FreeColorado.com.

Partnership for a Healthy Colorado (http://www.healthypartnership.org/node/15) claims, "The cost of doing nothing about health care reform is currently $934 a year in increased premiums for Colorado families, and $355 for Colorado individuals." Yet, as the article notes, Lewin's (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D998%2F402%2FColorado+Presentation3.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1167363685228&ssbinary=true) numbers suggest (in our words) "a maximum likely cost-shift of about $85 per insured individual per year" (see page 20 of Lewin's document). Yet, whatever the exact figure, the main point is that the Commission's reforms would dramatically expand cost-shifting, not reduce it.

Reply to Colorado Media Matters

January 30, 2008

As I have reviewed [at FreeColorado.com], today the Colorado Springs Gazette summarized the dispute between radio host Jon Caldara and ProgressNow. At the Gazette's web page, "bmenezes" (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/stun_32527___article.html/guns_caldera.html) states:

OK, we'll ignore the fact you've reproduced a lie from Ari Armstrong; he wasn't just a "volunteer" for the Independence Institute, he was both a research associate and author who wrote some two dozen articles for them over the past 10 years, in addition to producing articles under his Independence Institute guise for other websites such as that of the think tank's research director.

Following is my reply:

That's Right, Attack the Messenger...

Rather than deal with the facts that ProgressNow is hypocritical in its stance against Caldara and that "bitch slap" is not an offensive term as popularly used by leftist commentators such as James Carville, ProgressNow has chosen to attack the messenger. Note that what ProgressNow has NOT done is refute a single one of my claims on the matter. The facts are what they are, regardless of who discovered them.

It would be pleasant if "bmenezes" would refrain from libeling me. The fact that the title "research associate" was added to some of the articles that I wrote FOR FREE for the Independence Institute does not make me an employee; I have never lied about any part of this. Nor have I written anything under any "guise."

And it turns out that "bmenezes" is Bill Menezes from Colorado Media Matters, the group that first criticized Caldara. (I know this because I called him.) If he's so interested in me listing my associations, then why didn't he list his affiliation with Colorado Media Matters in his comment to the Gazett?

As I write on my web page [FreeColorado.com]:

I was paid by the Independence Institute for work on one paper in 2005 on a contract basis; never was I an "employee" of the Institute. Beyond that, I've written various articles for the Institute on a strictly voluntary basis. But the claim is typical of the left, which, as the heir of Marx, holds that ideas are the products of one's material conditions. Of course, the left never thinks to apply such standards to itself. If ProgressNow wishes to get uptight about my casual relationship with the Independence Institute—which, by the way, has nothing to do with Caldara's radio show—then, by the same standard, mightn't we ask whether ProgressNow is giving Westword a pass for using the term "bitch slip" twelve times because Michael Huttner of ProgressNow once worked as an intern for Westword? But I don't buy such claims on either side. ProgressNow is merely trying to weasel its way out of its hypocritical stance by attacking the messenger.

Menezes claims that I am a liar based on his incorrect assumption that "Ari Armstrong is a former employee of the 'free-market' think tank," as stated on another post by Colorado Media Matters [dead link: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200801300002]. What Caldara actually said, as quoted by Colorado Media Matters, is this: "Ari's been a good friend and has done some work at the Independence Institute over the years." Yes, I've done some work "over the years"—some free work, in every case but one paper. And, by the way, I did mention the contract work to the Gazette, but what the Gazette publishes is up to the Gazette.

It is Bill Menezes who is the paid hatchet man. I wrote about the spat between Caldara and ProgressNow because it's an interesting story. I have been paid not one cent for that work. (I may, however, cite the work in future fundraising efforts for my personal web pages.) What's your salary with Colorado Media Matters, Bill Menezes? How much do you get paid for character assassination? In a follow-up call to Menezes, he refused to tell me his salary, on the grounds that I am a "known misinformationist."

When I asked Menezes what are his grounds for making that statement, he claimed that I failed to reveal my ties to the Independence Institute on Peter Boyles's radio show. But who cares? It literally never occurred to me, because that loose association has nothing to do with the spat between ProgressNow and Caldara. Moreover, that association is not some big secret, as a quick search of the Independence Institute's web page reveals [dead link: http://www.i2i.org/main/search.php?q=ari+armstrong&Submit=Search]. Nor has Menezes been able to point to a single factual error that I've made regarding ProgressNow and the use of the term "bitch slap."

Yesterday Colorado Media Matters posted a lengthy comment by "E.B." that continues in the same vein [dead link: http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200801300001].

"E.B." states, "However, Boyles uncritically allowed Armstrong to omit reference to his work for Caldara at the Independence Institute." Apparently, Boyles did not know of that association, so he didn't think to ask. And "libertarian blogger Ari Armstrong failed to disclose that he was a contributing author and research associate at the 'free-market' Independence Institute, of which Caldara is president."

"E.B." continues: "Additionally, Armstrong falsely claimed that 'the public's radio waves' are 'owned by' stations that 'bought the waves up'; in fact, the Federal Communications Commission licenses use of the broadcast spectrum."

Again, Colorado Media Matters is not breaking open some deep dark mystery. Everybody knows that the FCC issues radio licenses. As is obvious to anybody but the prejudiced hacks at Colorado Media Matters, by the phrase "bought the waves up," I was referring to the fees that radio stations pay for those licenses. I make this point perfectly clear in my post of January 28:

Even though the radio waves are today "public"—i.e., nationally controlled by the FCC—properly radio waves should be private property. And the owners of a radio station, the same as the owners of a newspaper, should have the political right to set speech policy for the station.

It is simply impossible, when talking live in a discussion format, to state every single point in an exactly precise manner. Nobody can do that. Not me, and not Bill Menezes or "E.B." It is simply not humanly possible. Yet "E.B." did not grant my statements a remotely sympathetic interpretation. I did not precisely state that radio stations pay for licenses, but my obvious point was that radio stations have to spend a lot of resources to run a station, and, by rights, they should own their frequencies. But, as I suggested on the radio, the left is not happy with such a proposal, because the left wishes to impose censorship on radio stations.

The complaints of Colorado Media Matters against me are petty, stupid, and vindictive. Moreover, they are a cover to rationalize the unjust and hypocritical attacks by Colorado Media Matters and ProgressNow against Caldara. (Colorado Media Matters is also silly to attack me, an atheist who supports gay rights, the separation of church and state, open immigration, and legal abortion, as I often carry the water of the funders of Colorado Media Matters. But, no matter—I claim Caldara as a friend, and that is enough to demonize me.)

Menezes sent me the following e-mails just a bit ago, after I told him on the phone that I was calling to formally interview him:

From: bmenezesATmediamattersDOTorg
Subject: Followup from Bill Menezes
Date: January 30, 2008 12:08:36 PM MST
To: ariATfreecoloradoDOTcom

Ari,

Maybe I'd take you more seriously if you weren't so obviously concerned with covering your tracks. The phone number you called me from is blocked so I have no way of returning the call, which isn't surprising given how you concealed your ties with Caldara and the Independence Institute from Peter Boyles.

Plus, your question about my salary reinforces the idea that you're concerned about red herrings and little else.

Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
720-[number omitted]

From: bmenezesATmediamattersDOTorg
Subject: What's also really puzzling...
Date: January 30, 2008 12:48:17 PM MST
To: ariATfreecoloradoDOTcom

. . . is how rattled you apparently are about public disclosure of your ties to Caldara and the Independence Institute. One would think that somebody who has done as much work with them as you have in recent years would be touting such a relationship as if you were proud of it. Yet, you hide it in the shadows until it gets pulled out into the light of day. Why is that?

Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
720-[number omitted]

[In reply to my note about my reasons for concealing my number:]

From: bmenezesATmediamattersDOTorg
Subject: RE: Followup from Bill Menezes
Date: January 30, 2008 1:05:58 PM MST
To: ariATfreecoloradoATcom

Sorry, it's easy to get taciturn when someone clearly is trying to pull a fast one on you.

What on earth does my salary have to do with Jon Caldara's use of misogynist language?

Bill M.
Colorado Media Matters
720-[number omitted]

I have several responses to Menezes's insane accusations. First, I concealed my phone number because I received a death threat some years ago (incidentally, for criticizing a right-winger). Second, I have concealed nothing about my associations. Third, it is extremely easy to get ahold of me, as I list my e-mail address on both of my web pages (as Menezes apparently discovered). Fourth, Menezes's salary is relevant here, because he is claiming that I am biased by my loose association with the Independence Institute. If that's the case, then, by his own standards, Menezes is obviously much more biased. (In fact, he is demonstrably biased, regardless of his affiliations.) Fifth, the entire complaint about Caldara's use of the term "bitch slap" is a red herring!

Comment by Patrick Sperry: Shooting the messenger is clearly what this is all about Ari. You being employed by II is like saying that when my wildlife pictures get published I am employed by those magazines... Go figure. There is a reason it is called "free lancing."
You caught those hypocrytes with their pants down. Too bad for them.

Dishonor Killings

January 31, 2008

Recently I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/murder-for-allah.html) wrote about an apparent "honor killing" in Texas, in which a Muslim man allegedly murdered his own daughters for dating.

My wife, who continues to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Infidel, read me the following quote today:

When I tried to find out about honor killings...—how many girls were killed every year in Holland by their fathers and brothers because of their precious family honor—civil servants at the Ministry of Justice would tell me, "We don't register murders based on that category of motivation. It would stigmatize one group in society." The Dutch government registered the number of drug-related killings and traffic accidents every year, but not the number of honor killings, because no Dutch official wanted to recognize that this kind of murder happened on a regular basis. Even Amnesty International didn't keep statistics on how many women around the word were victims of honor killings. ... (pages 295-96)

Talk about multiculturalism run amuck!

Surely Ali is among the bravest women in the world.

Healthcare Commission Minority Report

January 31, 2008

Linda Gorman and R. Allan Jensen, minority members of the "208" Healthcare Commission, issues the following media release today (that I received from the Independence Institute):

MINORITY REPORTS FAULT HEALTH CARE REFORM COMMISSION PROCESS, RECOMMENDATIONS

The final report of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Committee for Health Care Reform, presented to the Colorado Legislature on January 31, 2008, includes two minority reports, one written by Commissioner Mark Simon and one written by Commissioners Linda Gorman and R. Allan Jensen.

In their report, Gorman and Jensen explain why the Commission has produced inadequate policy recommendations, offer alternative suggestions for real reform, and make three major points:

The Commission did not adopt any of the standard legal or academic methods for uncovering and agreeing on basic facts. As a result, many Commission policy recommendations rest on demonstrably incorrect or unprovable propositions. The lack of fact finding severely hampered the Commission's ability to discover workable recommendations, for instance;

The Commission asserts that coverage for all will assure medical care for all. Unlike in the U.S., in virtually all health systems that have government imposed coverage for all, shortages of care deny access to basic and advanced medical treatment. The Commission cannot even guarantee that its recommendation for an individual mandate will substantially reduce the number of uninsured. The Commission recommendation for required individual coverage applies only to legal residents of Colorado. A substantial portion of Colorado's uninsured are illegal aliens;

The Commission states that an individual mandate is enforceable and will eliminate free care to the uninsured. In the only state with an individual mandate, 20 percent of the uninsured were exempted after less than 18 months of operation, and fewer people are voluntarily enrolling than predicted;

The Commission says that health care providers gave $777 million in uncompensated care in 2007. It implies that this is paid for by the privately insured and that spending $1.5 billion on a Medicaid expansion and $550 on insurance subsidies will make people better off by obviating the need for the $777 million in free care. In fact, the largest fraction of that uncompensated care is generated by Medicaid and Medicare.

Many of the most important Commission recommendations have either had no real world tests or have already failed in the real world;

The public program expansions recommended by the Commission have not operated as advertised in Massachusetts, the state plan which the Commission recommendations mimic. After roughly 18 months of operation, the Massachusetts health reform is $245 million over its $470 million budget. About 20 percent of people signing up for free care are new, the rest were previously in public assistance programs. There is no way to know how many people are dropping private coverage to participate in the state plan.

The extension of community rating and guaranteed issue to Colorado's individual insurance market is billed as a way to keep costs lower for those who have chronic conditions, and to make health insurance more widely available. This has not worked in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other states in which it has been tried. Instead, health insurance has become more expensive and more difficult to get. Private experimentation with new and innovative ways to provide health insurance and health care has been stopped. Colorado already guarantees health insurance to everyone, regardless of medical condition, via a state plan called Cover Colorado.

The Commission majority repeated voted against analyzing reform options that increase consumer choice and accountability in favor of plans that rely on government control As a result, it turned away from considering any of the consumer-directed options known to have improved quality and to have reduced health care costs.

The Colorado Consumer Directed Attendant Support program for Medicaid patients is an example of a Medicaid reform that has both reduced spending on attendants by 20 percent and improved patient care.

Innovative health insurance policies are showing that changes in policy structure can reduce spending and improve care. At Wendy's International, shifting to a health savings account based consumer-directed plan decreased claims by 14 percent and overall costs, including deposits to employee HSA accounts, by 1 percent in 2005.

The Commission did not discuss reducing state regulations on insurers and health care providers. Professor Christopher Conover of Duke University estimates that excess regulation adds 10 percent to annual health care costs.

Dr. Gorman and Mr. Jensen invite the public to closely examine the minority report they authored for further details, and for expanded information.

Obama on Faith-Based Welfare

February 1, 2008

Recently (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/morris-on-obama.html) I discussed Barack Obama's comments about abortion in Christianity Today. Now I want to turn to Obama's comments about faith in general and about the tax funding of religious groups. The (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html) article is from Christianity Today, and the interview, "Q&A: Barack Obama," conducted by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen, was published on January 23.

Obama makes clear that he is deeply religious:

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. ... Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

Subscription to the Christian faith is common among U.S. presidents. The problem arises when a Christian politician attempts to impose Christian theology by force of law. Clearly, Obama is restrained by his own party and political beliefs from traveling too far down the path toward faith-based politics. However, he also clearly tries to support the standard Democratic agenda with Christian beliefs.

In the following comment, Obama does not make clear whether he wants to use tax dollars for the programs in question:

I think it is important for us to encourage churches and congregations all across the country to involve themselves in rebuilding communities. One of the things I have consistently argued is that we can structure faith-based programs that prove to be successful—like substance abuse or prison ministries—without violating church and state. We should make sure they are rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation. That's the kind of involvement that I think many churches are pursuing, including my own.

However, Obama does say that he sees no inherent problem with spending tax dollars on religious groups. Christianity Today asked, "So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?" Obama answers:

You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.

Obama is rightly concerned about political interference in religion, but he does not believe that spending tax dollars on religious groups will necessarily create that problem.

However, Obama completely ignores the other side of the problem: what about the rights of people who do not wish to fund religious organizations? Religious freedom entails the right not to support religious groups against one's choice.

The example of prison ministry has broader implications. I have no problem with Christian ministry in prisons—so long as it is voluntary for prisoners, prisoners have equal access to secular alternatives, and no tax dollars are involved. Obama talks about Christians "rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation." Is this Obama's attitude also with faith-based welfare? But what about people who are not members of any religious congregation? An explicitly religious group that spends tax dollars necessarily promotes a religious message, however subtly. And the religious group itself benefits from the tax dollars. Again, people have the right not to support such things.

Poverty and Responsibility

February 1, 2008

The (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/18/speakout-loading-the-dice-against-responsibility/) following article originally appeared in the Rocky Mountain News on January 18:

SPEAKOUT: Loading the dice against responsibility

Columnist Campos' claims about racism riddled with confusions

By Ari Armstrong

Friday, January 18, 2008

The ever-subtle Rocky Mountain News columnist Paul Campos suggests that those who praise "individual responsibility" believe that "poor black people are disproportionately lazy, stupid and immoral." Campos adds that the same people also mock "the notion that the government (meaning you and me) can do anything but make things... even worse" for the chronically poor. (See Campos' Jan. 9 column, "Dice loaded against blacks.")

Campos' claims are riddled with confusions. There is no contradiction between upholding individual responsibility and finding problems with the circumstances in which the chronically poor find themselves. Nobody disputes the historical fact that slavery and racist laws and prejudices severely harmed black Americans.

But is racism the main cause of today's problems? Or, as I believe, have a variety of misguided government programs entrenched chronic poverty?

Myriad economic controls, along with payroll taxes of 15 percent, make it hard for the poor to get ahead. Welfare programs have discouraged work, encouraged broken families, and displaced voluntary charity. Government-run schools and other programs often underserve the poor. This is a real (and complicated) debate, and Campos cannot win it by unfairly insinuating that his opponents are racists.

Campos suggests that one must either blame individuals or blame their circumstances. Often that is a false alternative. In fact, as various black leaders have passionately argued, blacks trapped in poverty often exacerbate their own problems. (The point is true regardless of race.) Somebody who impregnates a teenage girl with no plans to raise the child cannot merely blame racists or the government for such behavior. Gangsters who rob and kill, and hook children on drugs are morally responsible for their acts.

The fact is that some people born into chronic poverty break the cycle, earn a decent education, and rise to the middle class or beyond. They are able to do it through strength of character. At the same time, others born to advantage waste their lives. As people should be blamed for their irresponsible behavior, so they should be praised for their achievements. Individual responsibility works both ways.

Campos claims that "the government" consists merely of "you and me," so why be skeptical of its potential for social planning? This is an odd claim, for Campos implies through his broader comments that some people are politically powerless. In fact, politics is plagued by interest groups and political payoffs. Are welfare programs somehow immune from such problems?

Campos' broader error is to ignore the particular nature of government. It makes a difference whether "you and I" rely on persuasion and voluntary interaction, or whether we bring to bear the force of government. I believe that it is precisely because political programs rely upon the forcible redistribution of wealth and the forcible restraint of voluntary interaction that such programs tend to miss their lofty aims.

That is not to say that government plays no legitimate role.

Government can be effective when it sticks to protecting people's rights—that is, preventing crime and protecting people and their property from violence. Higher crime is a major reason why the chronically poor have trouble getting ahead, and government dramatically improves the lot of the poor by protecting people's rights.

Campos fundamentally misrepresents the arguments of those who champion individual responsibility. Partly because of that, he also fails to make his own case. And for that I blame Paul Campos, not his background or circumstances. Individual responsibility applies to everyone.

Ari Armstrong edits FreeColorado.com and blogs at AriArmstrong.com. He is a resident of Westminster.

Rand on God

February 3, 2008

Ayn Rand has many things to say about religion. However, I found one of her comments in a place I didn't expect: the lengthy appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Somebody asks her about the conceptual status of "God." She replies:

["God"] is not a concept. At best, one could say it is a concept in the sense in which a dramatist uses concepts to create a character. It is an isolation of actual characteristics of man combined with projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do not arise from reality—such as omnipotence and omniscience.

Besides, God isn't even supposed to be a concept: he is sui generis, so that nothing relevant to man or the rest of nature is supposed, by the proponents of that viewpoint, to apply to God. A concept has to involve two or more similar concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality. (page 148)

Incidentally, I also found the material between pages 150 and 157 to contain a number of interesting comments about volition and the distinction between mind and matter.

Comment by Neil Parille: A concept has to involve two or more similar concretes, and there is nothing like God. He is supposed to be unique. Therefore, by their own terms of setting up the problem, they have taken God out of the conceptual realm. And quite properly, because he is out of reality." I don't find this persuasive. Why do you need two concretes to conceptualize something? What about the concept "reality"? There is only one reality, yet the concept makes sense. Or, if a child goes to a zoo and sees a specific creature (a hippo say) does he need to see a second to form a concept?

Comment by Ari: The concept "reality" is a bit different, because it means simply, "everything that exists." It is the sum total of every instance of every (valid) concept and everything that has not been conceptualized. One can see an individual hippo, but one cannot form a concept of a "hippo" until one realizes that there's more than one of them, and that they are distinct from all other animals. I think Rand's point is two-fold. First, God is not a concept; it's more of a proper name for one supposed thing. Second, the idea of God includes "impossible, irrational characteristics," which means that God isn't even something real. So "God" is not a concept, the way that "man" is, and God does not exist, the way my friend Joe does.

Comment by Neil Parille: Leaving God and the universe aside, I still think the theory is very problematic. For example, we can't form the concept "solar system" until we discover that there is more than one? In fact, that seems to be the exact opposite of the way the mind works. We conceptualize something (our solar system) and then search for others.

Comment by Ari: At this point, I don't think it's very fruitful to continue discussions about Rand's theory of concepts without getting into the substance of her theory (which is not the emphasis of this blog). However, I will wrap up with a couple of brief replies to Neil. The entire point of a concept is to name a class of objects that are similar in some key respect but that differ within a defined range. "Man" is a rational animal; men can be short, tall, thin, fat, etc. Generally, If there's only one of something in the universe that we know of, we assign it a proper name, not a concept. "Joe" is not a concept; he is a particular person. We do in fact learn about solar systems in the context of knowing about other stars with revolving planets. If, for some reason, our solar system were surrounded by a shroud that blocked all external light, people would have had a much harder time reaching the concept of "solar system;" most likely they could have done it only when they discovered that there's something beyond the shroud. To take another example, let us say that a man was raised by wolves his entire life, and he never saw another person. In fact, this man probably would never reach a conceptual stage, but, if he could, he might indeed notice that he was different from all other animals. But he could only accomplish this by reaching a concept of "animal," and then noticing that he was not a member of any known species. Then he might extrapolate that there might be other beings like him, somewhere. But any such discovery would be radically dependent upon the prior discovery of many other concepts formed in the common way of integrating two or more similar things in contrast with other things.

Stimulus Nonsense

February 3, 2008

On (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/crank-this-sucker-up.html) January 20 I criticized Bush's so-called "stimulus" proposal:

There are two obvious problems with Bush's proposal. First, it includes no commitment to offsetting the welfare transfers and tax rebates with reductions in federal spending. Second, it seems to promise more federal spending to cover the additional welfare transfers. In other words, spending will go up even more, while tax revenues will go down. This will be achieved through the magic of deficit spending, which necessarily takes real wealth out of the private economy by reducing investments, and/or more inflation. And, to address the problem of unemployment, Bush will pay people more not to work.

Finally some professional economists are chiming in.

Walter Williams (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/30/stimulus_package_nonsense) writes:

There are three ways government can get the money for a stimulus package. It can tax, borrow or inflate the currency by printing money. If government taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another who pays the tax, who is unstimulated and has less money to spend. If government borrows the money, it's the same story. This time the unstimulated person is the lender who has less money to spend. If government prints money, creditors, and then everyone else, are unstimulated.

John Lott, Jr. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326086,00.html) writes for Fox News (January 28):

The notion that sending people $300 to $600 checks will increase spending is based on an old Keynesian notion. The reason why this won't work is that the money has to come from someplace. Two options are open: either the government raises taxes or borrows. Everyone understands how taxes merely redistributes the money. But borrowing is no different. Borrowing takes money from those who otherwise would have used it to do everything from investing to buying houses or cars. ...

All the "stimulus package" will do is take wealth from some people and give it to others. It will not increase total expenditures. ...

The Democrats... know that extending unemployment benefits will increase the unemployment rate, thus making it easier for Democrats to use the economy as an election issue.

Dozens of economic research papers indicate that when you extend or increase unemployment benefits, you lengthen unemployment, because recipients wait until their benefits have been exhausted to take their next job. Even the economists who advise the Democrats know this. Larry Katz, the chief economist at the Labor Department during the Clinton administration, co-authored a study that found that workers are almost three times more successful in finding jobs when benefits are just about to run out.

Lott suggests that the right approach is to "cut marginal tax rates on individuals and companies." I quite agree, provided that federal spending is reduced comparably.

However, Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16439) argued on January 16 that we need more substantive economic reforms to achieve a more prosperous economy:

We don't need the government to 'stimulate' the economy with some new intervention; we need it to liberate us from all its destructive economic intervention that put us in this situation.

We need liberation from environmentalist restrictions on oil drilling and energy production. We need liberation from Sarbanes-Oxley, which treats businessmen as guilty until proven innocent and increases the cost of doing business for every publicly traded corporation. We need liberation from the government's pervasive regulation and semi-socialization of the health-care market, which have artificially driven up the costs of health care. We need liberation from the intervention of the Federal Reserve, which is destroying our savings by inflating the currency. And we need liberation from countless other forms of government spending; if spending does not decrease, then any 'stimulus' tax cuts are simply tax increases for the future.

We should not regard Uncle Sam as an economic Doctor Sam, whom we need to stimulate the heart of the economy with his defibrillator. When the government violates our right to produce and trade freely, it is an economic cancer that needs to be removed from the economy.

Hear, hear.

John McCain on Religion

February 4, 2008

Now that it seems more likely that John McCain will become the Republican nominee, I thought it was a good time to see where McCain stands on religion in politics. The short answer is that he's all for it.

The official John McCain web page contains the document, (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) "Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life."

McCain said, "To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all." He really means it. For example, he wishes to force women to sacrifice their lives to the Christian dogma against abortion. Here's what McCain's web page says on the issue:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. ...

McCain's ultimate goal, then, is "ending abortion." The web page lists no exceptions; I don't know whether McCain has mentioned possible exceptions elsewhere. However, it seems that his official web page should be taken at face value as the statement of his positions. If we take the goal of "ending abortion" seriously, that means a complete ban on the "morning after" pill. It means criminal penalties for women and/or doctors involved with abortion. It means that women who are raped will be forced to carry the child to term. It means that women whose lives are in danger will be forced to face death rather than get an abortion. It means that, from the moment the sperm enters the egg, that embryo is fully protected by law, regardless of the the health of the embryo, the cause of the embryo, or the health, choices, and welfare of the woman carrying the embryo. Even if McCain hastens to carve out exceptions, his policy would still subvert the health and autonomy of the woman to an embryo. McCain calls for sacrifice, and he means it. He literally means that women must sacrifice their lives to the "eminence" of the Christian doctrine that equates a fertilized egg with a human being. (Notably, the text about abortion appears on the web page right next to a video titled, "Faith.") That is what John McCain means by the term "human dignity."

Not surprisingly, then, McCain also wishes to potentially sacrifice the lives of sick people to embryos; he opposes stem-cell research. [February 6 update: McCain opposes some forms of stem-cell research (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) but also believes, "Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases..."]

Back in October, (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/churchstate-separation-endorsed-by.html) I pledged to "vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state." Obviously McCain wishes to impose religious doctrine by force of law. Thus, I will not vote for John McCain for any political office, under any circumstances.

Freedom is Compassionate, Force is Not

February 4, 2008

The (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080204/COLUMNISTS/904815527/-1/OPINION) following article originally appeared in the February 4, 2008, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Freedom is compassionate, force is not

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We've been writing a lot about health policy because it is an extremely important issue that has been at the center of the political table for the past couple of years. One side of the debate calls for more political control of medicine in the form of more tax spending, more mandates, and more political interference. The other side, which we join, points out that existing problems in medicine are the result of just such political force, and the solution is liberty in medicine, a free market that consistently protects individual rights to direct one's resources and interact voluntarily.

In our (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/medicine-high-costs-of-political.html) January 21 column, we argued, among other things, that doctors should not be forced to provide service without compensation. This is hardly a radical claim. For instance, most people don't expect grocery stores to offer "free" food to any comer who claims to need it. However, even though nobody forces them to do so, many grocery stores voluntarily contribute to food banks. We have heard of no proposal to force grocery stores to offer "free" food to whoever demands it, without compensation. Nor are we unique in thinking that the use of such force would result in widespread abuses. Certainly nobody seriously proposes the nationalization of grocery stores to "solve" the problem of hunger.

Yet some expect us to believe that, while we count on the free market to provide us with other necessities of life, from food to housing to clothing, in health care the proper approach is socialized medicine.

In his (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080124/OPINION/836393850) January 24 reply, Michael Pramenko alleges that we are heartless for endorsing a free market in medicine. He offers as examples a man suffering chest pains, an infant born prematurely, and a child with asthma. If these people cannot afford treatment, will they be tossed out in the street? Pramenko is relying upon his readers' sympathy, and the very fact that so many people care about such patients ensures that they will find care in a free market.

A free market means one in which people are free to interact voluntarily. Thus, a free market includes all voluntary charity. For example, as a Shriner, your elder author helps to raise funds for the Shriners Hospitals, which provide care to children at no charge. In a free market, not only would many hospitals and clinics provide services to the poor at no cost or at discounted rates, but many individuals and foundations would provide funds to cover such care.

What is heartless is forcing a doctor to provide care to any person who walks in the door, regardless of the circumstances and without compensation. Such a system invites widespread abuse. Many people who can afford to pay for their care simply skip out on their bills. Some who could afford insurance choose not to buy it; after all, one is guaranteed "free" care by law, at somebody else's expense. Others neglect their health, actively damage their health (as through alcoholism), or ignore lower-cost options because the law grants them "free" yet expensive emergency care.

If Pramenko actually believes that doctors should be forced to offer care, then why stop there? Why not also force grocery stores, clothing stores, and so on, to also provide "free" goods to anyone who claims to need them, without compensation? Why not force private individuals to help others who claim to be in need, without limit? For instance, if somebody knocks on Pramenko's door and claims to need a place to live for a few months, shouldn't Premenko be forced to give the person a home, without compensation, no questions asked? Anybody with any common sense can predict the resulting chaos and injustice of any such policy.

In fact, as Lin Zinser and Dr. Paul Hsieh review in an article available at TheObjectiveStandard.com, the law forcing hospitals to offer "free" care has resulted in many emergency rooms shutting down.

Just as all of us have the right to decide whom to help in our own homes and with our own charitable dollars, just as we have the right to offer our labor in return for money, so doctors have the right to decide whom to serve and on what terms, as accepted voluntarily by the patient. No one has the right to demand "free" service from a doctor, or from a grocer, or from anyone. Doctors who wish to provide care at no cost are free to do so, and doctors who wish to work only in exchange for compensation have that right.

But Pramenko is not content merely to leave in place existing unjust laws that harm our health. He wants to impose more such controls. The result will be higher taxes, more political controls placed on doctors, and more rationing for patients. Politically controlled medicine is heartless.

The alternative to Pramenko's heartless, health-harming, politically-controlled medicine is a compassionate and just free market in medicine.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Aristotle on Intellectual Ambitiousness

February 5, 2008

Recently I acquired the two-volume Complete Works of Aristotle, which promises many hours of illuminating reading. The first book I started to look through is Metaphysics, in which Aristotle argues that no knowledge is properly beyond man. He writes of the subject at hand (Book I (A) 2, or page 1555):

Hence the possession of it might be justly regarded as beyond human power; for in many ways human nature is in bondage, so that according to Simonides 'God alone can have this privilege', and it is unfitting that man should not be content to seek the knowledge that is suited to him. If, then, there is something in what the poets say, and jealousy is natural to the divine power, it would probably occur in this case above all, and all who excelled in this knowledge would be unfortunate. But the divine power cannot be jealous (indeed, according to the proverb, 'bards tell many a lie'), nor should any science be thought more honourable than one of this sort.

So, while Aristotle comfortably refers to God, Aristotle is careful not to place any knowledge beyond the reach of man. This approach is the exact opposite of that of, say, Saint Augustine (and of many modern evangelicals).

Aristotle adds that metaphysics "would be most meet for God to have... for God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle..." What Aristotle means by this "first principle," and why he finds it necessary, is one of the main points that I hope to learn from the volumes.

Hollywood Welfare

February 5, 2008

While politicians are busy making up euphemisms for corporate welfare, journalists are busy covering for them.

Joanne Kelley wrote an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/30/state-looking-to-boost-film-biz/) article for the January 30 Rocky Mountain News titled, "$10 million bill aims to lure Hollywood to Colorado." Kelley describes a "$10 million cash rebate program" that "would boost the fledgling incentive budget from its current $600,000 a year in an attempt to help the state compete with others that have attracted far more Hollywood film productions after spending heavily on enticements." Not surprisingly, a Republican, Representative Tom Massey, co-sponsored the bill. Because Republicans love welfare, even if it's for Hollywood.

Kelley continues, "Producers with motion picture budgets of at least $250,000 would be able to collect a cash rebate of up to 15 percent of the money they spend while shooting a movie in Colorado."

Let's stop right there. This is not a "rebate." It is a forced wealth transfer, a subsidy. It is corporate welfare. The top definition of "rebate" from (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebate) Dictionary.com, based on Random House, is "a return of part of the original payment for some service or merchandise; partial refund." For example, if you buy a computer from a store, and then the computer's manufacturer sends you a check for a fraction of the original payment, that's a rebate.

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about Colorado politicians forcibly taking money from some people in Colorado in order to give the money to other people who probably aren't even from Colorado. They're probably from California. So, basically, the proposal would forcibly transfer wealth from Coloradans to Californians—and, indirectly, to some other Coloradans. (Does anyone wish to check which Colorado lobbyists support the bill?) To return to the computer example, it would be as though you purchased a computer from Joe, and then Fred forced Judy to pay you some money. Such a practice may accurately be described as a lot of things, but "rebate" is not among them.

The Hollywood welfare scheme is a bad idea for at least three reasons. Before turning to the fundamental moral argument, I'll deal with the two economic points.

Kelley writes:

Proponents of boosting the rebate fund to $10 million point to the recent 12-day shoot of the Paramount Pictures film NowhereLand, starring Eddie Murphy. In that short time, the production spent $3.25 million here, booking rooms at the Brown Palace and hiring 12,000 extras and 65 crew members.

"If we had better incentives, they probably would have shot more of the movie here," said Rep. Cheri Jahn, D- Wheat Ridge, a co-sponsor of the legislation.

As Jayne might say, I'm smelling a lot of "if" coming off of this plan. The fact is, we'll never know whether somebody filmed a movie here specifically to get the welfare transfer, or whether they planned to film the movie here anyway, and then decided to cash in on the Hollywood welfare. However, we can be assured that politicians will point to all of the spending of all of the movies that get a subsidy and pretend that the inflated figure is somehow relevant.

Kelley points out that New Mexico also offers Hollywood welfare. This points to the second problem with the Colorado scheme. If Colorado increases its Hollywood welfare, this will only encourage other regions to increase theirs as well. Long term, this is a great deal for Hollywood but a lousy deal for the suckers paying the subsidies.

However, the moral point is more important. It is wrong to force Coloradans to subsidize movies against their wishes. People have the right to control their own income. Moreover, Hollywood welfare is a violation of free speech. The right of free speech entails the right not to speak and not to financially support the propagation of ideas that one finds offensive. Movies, by their nature, deal with ideas. Inevitably, a subsidy will go to a movie that at least some Coloradans find objectionable. A peripheral implication is that Hollywood welfare forces Coloradans of poor and average financial means to subsidize quite wealthy people, such as Eddie Murphy and Hollywood producers. If we (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/jesus-taxes-and-media.html) take seriously a recent article from The Denver Post, Colorado's taxes are already regressive. Forcing Colorado's poor to subsidize wealthy Hollywood movie makers (or even wealthy Colorado hotel owners) would add insult to injury.

Hollywood welfare violates the rights of Coloradans and is therefore morally wrong.

Thoughts on Super Tuesday

February 6, 2008

What are the religious implications of Super Tuesday? Obviously, many of my thoughts are speculative. But this is my best shot at explaining part of what's going on.

As I write, The Denver Post reports that John McCain leads the Republican race with 525 delegates, more than twice as many as Mitt Romney's 223 delegates, and more than the delegates of Romney and Mike Huckabee combined. Romney might still come back, but at this point it seems that McCain has the momentum. Why is that? I suspect that a large part of the reason is that many Republicans are shying away from the strong religious overtones of (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/12/romneys-religion.html) Romney and (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/amend-constitution-so-its-in-gods.html) Huckabee. And that is a very good sign. Generally I don't care what religion a president professes, but I do care when candidates for president promise to impose religious doctrine by force of law.

Yet, as I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/john-mccain-on-religion.html) pointed out, McCain has also cozied up to the religious right. Republicans, though, know that McCain is not as dedicated to faith-based politics as are his main competitors. From my perspective, though, McCain's turn remains deeply troubling. McCain knows that he cannot win without the evangelical wing of his party. And, once in office, McCain will face constant pressure to deliver the goods to this wing.

Even though Barack Obama seems much more interested in (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/obama-on-faith-based-welfare.html) faith-based politics than does McCain, Obama also faces obvious restraints by his party. For example, while Obama (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/morris-on-obama.html) rushed to give an interview to Christianity Today, he also made it clear that he wants to keep abortion legal.

Therefore, the way I see it, even though Obama seems to be more seriously religious, McCain is a much more dangerous threat to the separation of church and state. That is why I will vote for either of the two Democrats over any of the Republicans.

That said, as much as I personally dislike Hillary Clinton and strongly disapprove of most of her policies, I believe that she is the best candidate for preserving the separation of church and state.

The Republicans have made their bed, and I for one refuse to sleep in it. Clinton is about as strange a bedfellow as I can tolerate.

But how do I explain the results in Colorado? As I have argued (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/07/interiorwest.html) at length, the Interior West tends to be more secular in orientation. Why, then, did Colorado go for Obama and Romney, two of the more religious candidates, with such high numbers? The Post reports early figures of 67 percent for Obama and 59 percent for Romney.

I'll take the Democrats first. David Montero (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/05/west-rescues-romney/) argues for the Rocky Mountain News that Obama's message resonated with voters skeptical or tired of the war in Iraq. Montero adds, "It was also a conscious strategy by the Obama campaign to zero in on caucus states such as Colorado to pick up delegates and keep the overall race tight between himself and Clinton." Beyond that, I think there's something about Clinton's condescending, smarty-pants manner that rubs Westerners the wrong way.

What about Romney? For starters, the Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8166327) endorsed Romney, and the Post's libertarian-conservative David Harsanyi (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8166327) pounded McCain. As Lynn Bartels of the Rocky (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/05/colorado-romney-obama-lead/) points out, Romney "had a campaign presence in Colorado for months." I personally detest McCain, as I consider him an enemy of the Bill of Rights. The fact that McCain is from Arizona only rankles me all the more; he gives the Interior West a bad name. So it's not much of a surprise to me that Republicans in my state rejected him.

Obviously Romney stomped McCain in Utah, but even in Arizona early returns show McCain unable to win even half the votes. And Montana also went for Romney.

In Colorado, Romney's Mormonism isn't a big deal. Here, Mormons are more than guys in white shirts and ties pedaling bicycles; they are our friends and neighbors. In addition, because Coloradans are on the whole somewhat more secular, voters here don't get quite as excited by doctrinal differences. Even though nobody likes to discuss it, Romney's religious background did hurt him, not only among some urbanites, but among some evangelical Christians.

One more thing hurt McCain in Colorado: James Dobson of Focus on the Family (http://origin.denverpost.com/news/ci_8175296) came out swinging against McCain. Christa Marshall writes:

"Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life," Dobson said through a prepared statement read on "The Laura Ingraham Show."

Dobson singled out McCain's support for embryonic stem-cell research and opposition to a "constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." He also chastised the GOP presidential candidate for saying once that Hillary Clinton would make a good president and being a potential 2004 running mate for Sen. John Kerry.

Dobson seems to dislike McCain even more than I do, though for completely different reasons. Dobson attacked McCain even though McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) tried to appeal to evangelicals on the issues mentioned:

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation. ...

John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.

What this dispute indicates to me is that Republican candidates must seek to appease the religious right, but politicians who stop short of completely adopting the religious right's political agenda will always struggle with that group. While the Democratic Party is, most deeply, the party of pragmatic, watered-down socialism, the Republican Party is, most deeply, the party of faith-based politics.

In other words, Clinton is the rock to McCain's hard place.

Is there any way to dodge these charging horns? The only way out that I see is for the secular, free-market Republicans to abandon the religious right and find new friends among the free-trade and "blue dog" Democrats. The religious right already seems to be merging with the religious left. I'm not bothered by the prospect of the (non-Christian) socialist wing of the Democratic party finding itself without a coalition.

It would be nice if, in some future election, I actually had a reason to vote for a candidate.

Comment: Excellent analysis from your viewpoint. I'm speaking as an ex-"Christian" who grew up and decided to think for himself (so that you know where I'm coming from).
I, too, will not cast a vote this year if McCain is the nominee. The primary, early fracture that brought all of the current Republican miasma about was the litmus test of abortion. And, that's a shame. What should have been a personal issue became politicized and in the process weakened the Party. And now, "the chickens have come home to roost."

Comment by Myrhaf: I think most Republicans wouldn't mind Romney's religion if he were not such a weak candidate otherwise. He is a pragmatist to such an extent that he has no core—there's no there there. McCain does have a core (a damn scary one). Another reason Republicans are voting for McCain is "electability." His numbers look the best against the Democrats. The next four years will be ugly.

Comment by Danny Vice: Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here. This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals—and that has been proven true a hundred times. But how is handing the whole country over to liberals a suitable alternative to McCain? There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values as well as our country with them. Anti McCain commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years. Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years. This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left. My daughters will come of age in the next 4 to 8 years, and I'd rather have 50% of McCains earn than 0% of a destruction bent liberal's ear. Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren't careful, they may throw the entire country into a liberal spin that can take a decade(s) to pull back out of. There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What's more, there's no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues? We need an allie on every core issue we can get. Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck.... But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government. Do you want your kids growing up in that kind of environment? I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious serious problem here, that we can't afford to fall asleep on. Give it some thought, friends.

Unsafe Storage

February 6, 2008

They're (http://www.freecolorado.com/2001/01/lockupsafety.html) back. Colorado's Democrats held off for as long as they could, but, as predicted, their animosity toward peaceable gun owners is rising to the surface. (There are some exceptions among Colorado's Democrats.)

Mike Saccone (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/02/05/020508_1b_kids_and_guns.html) reported the story for the February 5 Daily Sentinel, which assigned the biased headline, "Bill would crack down on careless gun storage." The bill would do no such thing. It would instead intimidate gun owners who store their guns safely, giving criminals the upper hand. A more accurate headline would have stated, "Bill would coddle criminals, punish responsible gun owners." (Of course, the Sentinel could also consider hiring headline writers capable of distinguishing between neutral and slanted language. "Bill would create new gun storage rules" would have been fine.)

Saccone writes, "Senate Bill 49 would make it a misdemeanor offense for an adult to fail to safely and securely store a firearm, which a 16-year-old or 17-year-old child could then use to harm someone or take the gun to school."

But, as I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2001/01/lockupsafety.html) wrote back in 2001, existing laws already cover cases of putting children in mortal danger, without discriminating against one class of citizens (i.e., gun owners). The Democrats, though, wish to punish gun owners in particular and criminalize them for responsible storage of a gun, which in many contexts means storing the gun such that it is available for potential defensive use.

Of course, many of those who support the "storage" bill generally oppose defensive gun ownership, and their strategy is to incrementally outlaw it.

The bills are available at the Colorado legislature's (http://www.leg.state.co.us/) web page.

The new twist for Senate Bill 08-049 is that it emphasizes "teenage suicide." This is a clever political move, because, obviously, nobody likes teenage suicide. But why is that suddenly the issue? The bill states, "A recent and comprehensive study of the effectiveness of laws to prevent minors' access to firearms shows a significant decrease in firearm suicides by minors in states that have adopted these laws..." I have not read the unspecified "recent and comprehensive study." But the uncritical reader might miss the significance of the phrase "firearm suicides." The anti-gun lobby apparently doesn't care whether the total suicide rate stays the same, so long as "firearm suicides" go down. If people switch methods of suicide, that's totally irrelevant, so far as the anti-gun lobby is concerned. Obviously, the proper goal is to responsibly reduce total teenage suicides, which are fundamentally unrelated to gun laws.

Nor does the anti-gun lobby care whether more people are victimized by criminals who have less to fear when they break into somebody's home.

Another problem with the bill is its invocation of the "reasonable person" standard. Unfortunately, prosecutors are not always reasonable; sometimes they prosecute cases to inflate their statistics so that they can run for higher office. Yet the bill requires the posting of notices that demand that "you store[] the firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would believe is inaccessible to a minor." Gee, nothing ambiguous about that!

For once, the Republicans have discovered their (http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/710/26/) back bones:

ColoradoSenateNews.com

Controversial curb on gun owners passes committee on party-line vote

Tuesday, 05 February 2008

Republicans sided with a host of witnesses in a Senate committee hearing Monday challenging a Democrat measure placing new conditions on guns stored at home. The State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee's GOP members said Senate Bill 49 would make it much harder for homeowners to protect themselves and their families against home intrusions and burglaries.

SB 49, sponsored in the Senate by Arvada Democrat Sue Windels, holds homeowners criminally liable--subject to a misdemeanor charge--if minors obtain their firearms and commit suicide or a crime against another. Windels says the measure is meant to cut crime and teen suicides, but Republicans on the committee said the bill would backfire.

"Current law already addresses this issue," Sen. Bill Cadman, a Colorado Springs Republican on the committee, said after the hearing.

"We have a good balance right now between the need to keep kids from misusing guns and the right of homeowners to be able to defend their families," Cadman said. "This bill would upset that balance by giving home intruders the upper hand and tying the hands of homeowners."

Current law already bars people from knowingly or recklessly allowing firearms to fall into the hands of any person under the age of 18.

Cadman said the bill as drafted imposes a one-size-fits-all restriction on homeowners by coercing them into keeping their guns inaccessible. As a result, he said, guns not only would be difficult to use in those circumstances where a homeowner needs quick access for home defense but also could wind up discouraging more citizens from trying to defend themselves at all.

"This bill likely would have a chilling effect on gun ownership," Cadman said.

Cadman added that statistics show that a decline in the ability of homeowners to defend themselves leads to an increase in crimes against those homeowners.

Cadman and fellow Colorado Springs Republican Sen. Dave Schultheis voted against the proposal. It passed 3-2 on a party line vote.

Defenders of the right to self-defense contend SB 49 represents the latest in a series of swipes at gun ownership by law-abiding citizens since ruling Democrats took power in the General Assembly. Last year, Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter signed two bills into law that placed additional restrictions on the right of Coloradans to carry concealed weapon.

SB 49 is now en route to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration.

Scientology Deserves Free Speech

February 7, 2008

As I have (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/cruise-control.html) made clear, I believe that Scientology is a cult that deserves nothing but censure and ridicule. That is, Scientology deserves nothing else except to enjoy the basic rights due to every group and individual. Free speech means nothing unless we defend the right to speak by groups we detest.

I was therefore disturbed to read the (http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/hackers-declare-scientology-dday/2008/02/07/1202234012004.html) following story in The Sydney Morning Herald:

Hackers declare Scientology D-day
Leo Shanahan
February 7, 2008—11:27AM

Anonymous internet users who have previously crashed Church of Scientology websites have named February 10 as a worldwide day of protest in a bid to "destroy" the controversial religion.

The group—called Anonymous—which includes skilled computer hackers, has posted a message on YouTube declaring war on Scientology, accusing it of trying to censor the internet and conducting "campaigns of misinformation".

The apparent catalyst for the attack was YouTube's decision to remove a video of Hollywood star Tom Cruise—one of Scientology's most high-profile recruits—espousing the religion's virtues after the church asked that it be pulled.

"Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed, for the good of your followers, for the good of mankind, and for our own enjoyment," the statement says. ...

Last week several major Scientology websites crashed in the United States and Britain. The FBI was asked to investigate after envelopes of white powder were sent to 19 Scientology churches in the Los Angeles area. ...

I do not know the full details of the Cruise video. However, (http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress) one page that continues to host the video speculates:

Yesterday, for a few hours, the clip of Tom Cruise discussing his beliefs as a Scientologist appeared on Youtube, and was republished by Radar and Defamer. That video is no longer available, most likely after the Church of Scientology sent in a copyright infringement notice.

I do not know if the Church of Scientology in fact holds the copyright to the video. Assuming that it does, for the sake of argument, censorship does not mean enforcing copyright. However, obviously Scientology cares nothing about the profitability of the video; the church is rightly worried that the video makes the church look ridiculous. As the cited poster of the video adds, "Gawker is now hosting a copy of the video; it's newsworthy; and we will not be removing it." This is a complicated matter of copyright law, then, but, offhand (and I may change my opinion about this) I'd say that Scientology is within its rights to ask that the video be removed and Gawker is within its rights to host the video anyway. Hosting the Cruise video is not comparable to (for example) hosting a film that is elsewhere for sale.

Scientology can more plausibly be accused of censorship in its use of vindictive litigation to silence critics. Scientology seems little interested in respecting the rights of free speech of others. However, the solution to this problem is to reform the litigation process to curb abuses. Two wrongs do not make a right, and silencing Scientology is not the appropriate remedy for Scientology's abuse of its critics. Scientology should be required to respect the rights of others, but beyond that the only legitimate way to counteract the organization is to criticize it in open debate.

People have the right to be Scientologists and to promote the ideology of the religion. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion demand that Scientologists be protected from those who would attempt to silence the religion. "First they came for the Scientologists..."

Sentinel Opposes Storage Bill

February 7, 2008

The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction published a (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/opinion/stories/2008/02/05/020608_4A_guns_edit.html) strongly worded editorial February 5 against the gun storage bill. Tracking a point (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/unsafe-storage.html) I made yesterday, the Sentinel points out that existing laws already address the issue of putting children in danger.

The paper goes on to make two points that I did not make (though I've written about in years past). First, the penalties of the bill hardly match the inherent penalties of irresponsible gun handling: "On top of losing your child or seeing him involved in a horrible crime, you could be fined."

Second, the law would only change the behaviors of people who are already safe:

[R]esponsible gun owners already keep their guns secured when minors are around. Equally important, they make sure their children are instructed in gun safety and understand the rules with respect to access to their weapons.

However, the irresponsible gun owners—those who care little about having loaded guns available and easily accessible even if their are children around—aren't likely to change simply because the state creates a new misdemeanor charge and a fine for violating it.

The result of the bill would be to discourage responsible, defensive gun ownership and thereby empower criminals. It's nice to see that the Sentinel, unlike various state legislators, has thought this one through.

The Forty Day Abortion Protest

February 8, 2008

The Gazette of Colorado Springs published an interesting (http://www.gazette.com/articles/vigil_32848___article.html/parenthood_planned.html) article on February 7 about an ongoing protest of an office of Planned Parenthood:

40-day, round-the-clock vigil will protest abortion

By Mark Barna
February 7, 2008—12:49AM

For the next 39 days, a group of Catholics and Protestants will gather around the clock on a sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood office to protest abortion.

The vigil began at 12:01 a.m. on Ash Wednesday, when the Rev. Bill Carmody [Respect Life director for the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs] prayed outside Planned Parenthood at 1330 W. Colorado Ave. Two or more protesters plan to be there on a rotating schedule to pray, read biblical verses and talk to women arriving for appointments. ...

Jody Berger, communications director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said... previous protests have been peaceful, and the participants stayed off Planned Parenthood's property in accordance with a state "bubble law." The law prohibits protesters from coming within 100 feet of the entrance of medical facilities and within 8 feet of their clients.

Of course, I fully support the right to protest, on public property, so long as the protest does not impede lawful activity. But I do wonder what sort of "talking to" the clients of Planned Parenthood will receive.

The article points out that, while the protest revolves around Catholic observances, "Protestant protesters say it transcends denominational differences." While it truly is refreshing that Catholics and Protestants have settled down to work with each other, their bloody decades of mutual slaughter safely behind us, unfortunately these churches join not only to peaceably protest but to enforce their religious doctrines by force of law. I wonder if a single one of the protesters would hesitate to outlaw all or nearly all abortions, given the chance.

The article continues with this insightful exchange:

Berger would like to see all church leaders join with Planned Parenthood to promote sex education and the use of contraception as a way to reduce abortions.

Carmody scoffed at the idea.

"Of course they want to promote contraception," he said. "It's good for their business. I promote chastity."

Ah, yes, chastity. That's the solution. No sex. I presume that Carmody means to exclude married couples, so long as they too refrain from using contraception, as birth control violates Catholic doctrine.

Of course, I've been married for nearly a decade now, and contraception has worked perfectly well over that entire period. I wonder what percent of all pregnancies that end in abortion result from properly used contraception that failed. My guess is that in the large majority of cases, no contraception was used, and in the overwhelming majority of the exceptions, it was used improperly. If everyone who had sex used contraception properly, then, the number of unplanned pregnancies would plummet. But that not an acceptable goal for Carmody.

Perhaps Berger now realizes that the ultimate goal of these Christians is not merely to "educate" women about the alleged evils of abortion, it is to outlaw abortion, based on Christian doctrine, and to eliminate all sex outside of marriage.

Force Versus Choice in Medical Care

February 8, 2008

Some days ago "Yaakov" left a comment regarding the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/medicine-high-costs-of-political.html) article, "More political control of medicine comes with higher costs." That article contains the following paragraph:

[W]hy is it that some people can demand "free" care from hospitals in the first place? After all, people can't force businesses to give them "free" food or clothing. The reason is that the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985 [EMTALA]... requires that hospitals that accept Medicare patients diagnose and treat anyone who comes within two hundred feet of an emergency room, regardless of whether the person can pay for the treatment" (see the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) article by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, at TheObjectiveStandard.com). We should repeal that unjust law and return to a system of voluntary charity.

I decided to post Yaakov's comment with my reply. Here is the comment:

January 23, 2008 12:39:49 AM MST

Granting for a moment that all of your information is accurate, an issue remains.

If the law is changed, it will become legal for a doctor to watch somebody die in front of him and not spend any effort or money to save the dying person.

Would you go to a doctor who had let a child bleed to death because the child had no insurance? How would you feel if it was your next door neighbor's kid and your brother was the doctor? Would you want to be that doctor?

This is a country that spent $10 billion on pet medical care. We fly sick kids in from third world countries to do $500,000 operations for free. We will not put up with poor children dying outside hospitals that only admit the rich.

We may go bankrupt, but something significant in our brains is going to have to change before the changes you advocate will be enacted.

My dad and I responded to a similar charge in a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/freedom-is-compassionate-force-is-not.html) follow-up article of February 4. Here I'll reiterate and expand some of those arguments.

Yaakov's basic error is to assume that every desirable outcome must and ought to be forced by political controls backed by men with guns. Thus, by this reasoning, if we want doctors to treat bleeding children, we must force doctors to treat them without compensation.

Yaakov's assumption that good outcomes require political force is clearly false. Indeed, political force interferes with good outcomes. For example, the fact that Soviet economic planners forced people to produce an efficient industrial society did not, in fact, achieve an efficient industrial society. It created mass poverty and starvation.

The fact that various nations impose socialized medicine does not prevent people there from dying from lack of care. Under socialized medicine, it is, in effect, sometimes "legal for a doctor to watch somebody die in front of him and not spend any effort or money to save the dying person." Under socialized medicine, the practice is not only permitted, it is inevitable. For details, see the section, "Attempted Solutions," in the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) article by Zinser and Hsieh.

But let's examine the central errors of Yaakov's position in more detail. If Yaakov actually believes his claims, then he should also advocate the following policies:

* If someone comes to Yaakov's house and claims to need a bed for the night (or the week, or the month), then Yaakov must be forced to provide the comer with a bed without compensation. If Yaakov refuses, he'll be subjected to severe financial penalties. It should make absolutely no difference whether Yaakov has an extra bed, whether Yaakov has other plans for his beds, whether the comer can afford to rent a bed elsewhere, or whether Yaakov thinks that the comer deserves a free bed.

* If someone comes to Yaakov's house and claims to need food, clothing, or any other essential item, Yaakov should also be forced to provide those things, without limit, and without compensation.

* Let us assume that Yaakov owns a business. If someone comes to Yaakov claiming to need a job in order to be able to afford the basic necessities of life, then Yaakov must be forced to provide the person with a job, regardless of whether Yaakov can afford the salary, and regardless of whether the person is willing and able to perform any useful work.

* If someone approaches Yaakov and claims to need his car for an essential purpose—such as a trip to the hospital—then Yaakov must be forced to lend his car to the person, without compensation, regardless of whether the person could get transportation elsewhere.

If doctors should be forced to provide service to any comer, regardless of circumstances, then grocers should also be forced to give out free food to anyone who claims to need it, clothing stores should be forced to give away free clothing, and so on.

Imagine the sort of society in which we would live if Yaakov's policy were consistently imposed. It would be a society in which people competed, not to produce and prosper, but to make themselves as needy as possible. Why get an education, why work, why treat others fairly, if you can just take whatever you want by force?

Recently (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/12/what-welfare-encourages.html) I quoted a passage from Atlas Shrugged that perfectly sums up the sort of society that Yaakov implicitly advocates:

It didn't take us long to see how it all worked out. Any man who tried to play straight, had to refuse himself everything. He lost his taste for any pleasure... He felt ashamed of every mouthful of food he swallowed, wondering whose weary nights of overtime had paid for it, knowing that his food was not his by right, miserably wishing to be cheated rather than to cheat... [H]e couldn't marry or bring children into the world, when he could plan nothing, promise nothing, count on nothing. But the shiftless and the irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies... they got more sickness than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes—what the hell, "the family" was paying for it! They found more ways of getting in "need" than the rest of us could ever imagine—they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed. (pages 619-20)

Forcing people to provide assistance to others, whatever the details, is grossly immoral and a violation of individual rights. The ultimate conclusion is Marx's dictum, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," with "need" determined by whoever seizes power.

The alternative is liberty. Each individual has the right to decide how to live his own life and use his own resources. In a system of individual rights, individuals often choose, by their own volition and good will toward others, to help others in need. However, such individuals also tend to make sure that their charitable donations are spent well to help those who deserve it without encouraging dependency.

Yaakov offers the sympathetic case of a child bleeding to death. Of all the people I've met, including Christians, Muslims, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, and so on, not a single one of them (save criminals) would hesitate to take every conceivable step to save a child in such circumstances. I also know a number of doctors, and they deserve far better than Yaakov's unjust insinuation that they will not help those innocently in desperate need unless they are forced to do so. Typically doctors are among the first ones to rush to the scene of an emergency.

Even in our semi-free market, all sorts of charitable organizations exist specifically to help children. For instance, my dad is a (http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/_Hospitals_for_Children/) Shriner:

Shriners Hospitals for Children relies on the generosity of donors to help us continue our mission of providing specialized pediatric care at no charge, conducting innovative research and providing world-class teaching programs for physicians and other health care professionals.

In a truly free market, I suspect that most hospitals and clinics would offer charitable services. Because marginal costs often are much lower than average costs (due to the high costs of facilities and machinery), many health providers would also offer sliding scales for payment options.

But don't parents bear any responsibility for raising their children? If parents were, in normal circumstances (as opposed to cases of rare, expensive problems), required to pay their health bills, perhaps parents would think twice about having children that they cannot afford to support. Perhaps parents would take better care of their children, reducing the chances of needing a trip to the emergency room. Perhaps in non-emergency situations parents would seek out less-expensive care options, such as regular doctors' offices. Perhaps more parents would purchase health insurance. Perhaps more parents would realize that they have to save money for health expenses, just as they have to save money for the rent and groceries. Perhaps more parents would take out short-term loans to pay off health expenses. Why should doctors (but not any other professional class) be forced to pay for parental irresponsibility?

But let us consider even less sympathetic cases as well. What about the people who could pay for their health care but choose to freeload? To take another example, one cycle proceeds as follows: an impoverished alcoholic, in rough shape because of a lifetime of bad choices and irresponsible behavior, drinks himself into unconsciousness, so somebody calls an ambulance, which takes the drunk to a hospital, which then must spend many thousands of dollars drying the guy out and fixing his self-induced medical ailments. Repeat this process every few weeks. Does Yaakov really believe that hospitals should be forced to treat, without compensation and without limit, chronic alcoholics, drug addicts, and gangsters who live by violence?

If we could attain a free society, that would imply a healthier culture in which such problems would be reduced. However, assuming the persistence of such problems, I do not doubt that a variety of charitable programs would be available even for such hard cases (as they are today). However, if I were running such a program, I would also impose very strict conditions for assistance. Alcoholics and drug addicts would have to clean up their lives, and criminals would have to work and live under controlled conditions. Charity in such cases should focus on rehabilitation and should avoid enabling self-destructive lifestyles.

Not only do existing rules encourage irresponsibility, they also harm the responsible. Not surprisingly, it is the unjust, immoral policy that Yaakov advocates that is responsible for depriving some people of health care. As Zinser and Hsieh (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) point out:

[A]s a result of EMTALA, hospitals are closing emergency rooms. According to the American College of Emergency Physicians, from 1993 to 2003, while the U.S. population grew by 12 percent, emergency room visits grew by 27 percent—from 90 million to 114 million visits. In that same period, however, 425 emergency rooms closed (14 percent of the ERs that existed in 1993), along with 703 hospitals and nearly 200,000 beds. More close every year.

By mandating that doctors and hospitals treat patients at a financial loss, EMTALA violates the rights of doctors and hospitals to set the terms of their business. Consequently, doctors who are unwilling to lose money or who are tired of treating dishonest patients withdraw from emergency rooms. This leads to more overcrowding, longer waiting times, and, in some cases, the closing of ERs. As the remaining ERs become still more overcrowded and understaffed, the quality of emergency room services necessarily declines, harming honest patients who have genuine emergencies.

As Zinser and Hsieh argue, the problems with modern medicine are caused by the imposition of political force. Today, many immoral political policies impose force, violating the rights of doctors, patients, and insurers. A just system, and a system that offers the best medical care, is one in which the rights of doctors, patients, and other parties are consistently protected.

McCain, Romney, and the Politics of Satan

February 10, 2008

Recently I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/thoughts-on-super-tuesday.html) wrote that "Romney's religious background did hurt him, not only among some urbanites, but among some evangelical Christians." How much did Romney's Mormonism hurt him among Catholics and Protestants? And just how different is Mormonism from those other Christian strains?

James Dobson of Focus on the Family (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006474.cfm) recently endorsed Mike Huckabee. (In response to concerns that he is so far behind the delegate count, Huckabee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0208/At_CPAC_Huck_embraces_new_role.html) responded, "Well, I didn't major in math. I majored in miracles. And I still believe in those, too.")

Notably, Dobson endorsed Huckabee only after Romney left the race; Romney's Mormonism was not a deal-breaker for Dobson in terms of presidential politics:

I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others.

Notice that Dobson's sole criteria here are issues particular to Christian dogma. Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, and Dobson supported the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. McCain did not support that amendment, even though he has (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/thoughts-on-super-tuesday.html) come out strongly in favor of the view that "the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman." But on this point Dobson insists on agreement with means as well as ends; he does not see as adequate prohibiting gay marriage (or "domestic partnerships") by means other than a Constitutional ban.

In opposing the Constitutional measure, McCain (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/) cited federalism:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

Dobson also puts McCain outside of the anti-abortion camp, even though McCain (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/thoughts-on-super-tuesday.html) has stated that his ultimate aim is "ending abortion."

So, even though McCain has essentially adopted Dobson's religious-right platform, the very reason that I will vote for McCain's opponent, McCain's positions on these issues are not strong enough for Dobson.

As a side note, at least (http://www.anncoulter.com/) Ann Coulter gave reasons for opposing McCain other than those grounded in Christian faith:

He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants. He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold. He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo. He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

I have no basic problem with McCain's view on amnesty, but I agree with Coulter that McCain's censorship law is terrible. In my view, that single position should disqualify McCain from any elected office.

Of course, Coulter also finds fault with McCain's partial support for stem-cell research and his marginally "soft" position on abortion. This tells us something about the religious right. It is not enough for the religious right merely for a candidate to advocate "ending abortion;" the candidate must stop at nothing to achieve that aim. Yet the view that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human person is based on nothing but religious dogma, and a ban on abortion would sacrifice the real rights of people to the make-believe rights of embryos.

But on to Romney's Mormonism. David Harsanyi (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8199223) wrote a humorous yet poignant column about the issue:

...Mitt Romney's exit from the presidential race was inevitable the moment evangelical voters heard he was a Mormon.

Evangelicals have shown us they now have a stranglehold on the Republican Party. ...

In 2006, Dr. James Dobson—whose wife excluded Mormons from participation in the National Day of Prayer that she chaired in 2004—explained, "I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon...."

... When asked if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion, Huckabee answered, "I think it's a religion. I really don't know much about it ... . Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Golly, gee, ya think? (All this time I thought the Dark Lord Xenu was Satan's brother.)

It seems perfectly reasonable to vote against a candidate based on faith, if the candidate's beliefs conflict and/or pose a theocratic threat to the Constitution.

An example of this latent danger might be seen in an aspiring presidential candidate declaring his supporters to be members of "God's Army" or "soldiers for Christ." A candidate like Huckabee.

The alleged belief that "Jesus and the devil are brothers" is hardly stranger than any belief of Catholic or Protestant Christianity. Indeed, the idea that gods have offspring arose long before Christianity. But is Huckabee's claim true? Certainly many other Christians think so. For example, GodVoter.org (!)—"Honoring God In Election 2008" (!!)—(http://www.godvoter.org/answers-mormonism-cult.html) claims:

"What evidence do you have that Mormonism teaches Jesus is Satan's brother?"

Quoted below are the founder, presidents, leaders and writings of Mormonism on your question, the teaching that God began as man, and the Mormon heresy of man becoming God someday:

"Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation." (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

"Long before you were born a program was developed by your creators... The principal personalities in this great drama were a Father Elohim, perfect in wisdom, judgment, and person, and two sons, Lucifer and Jehovah." (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 32-33)

"The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this sprit-filled brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind." (Milton R. Hunter, Gospel Through the Ages, page 15)

I have not checked the citations in question, so I have no idea whether GodVoter.org gets this right. (I welcome the comments of any reader, Mormon or otherwise, who can offer a good evaluation of this.) But the Catholics, too, (http://www.catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp) claim that the Mormons adopt the "doctrine of Jesus Christ being the 'spirit brother' of Lucifer." (Of course, as Elaine Pagels writes in The Origin of Satan, "As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God's obedient servants --a messenger, or angel... In Hebrew, the angels were often called 'sons of God'..."—page 39).

If you've not had your fill of crazy for the day, perhaps World Net Daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55642) will satisfy:

'Vote for Romney is vote for Satan'
Christian leader follows up Sharpton attack on Mormons
Posted: May 10, 2007
9:15 pm Eastern

While some evangelical Christians are defending the presidential candidacy of Mormon Mitt Romney from an attack by Al Sharpton, another prominent pastor is going further in his condemnation—saying a vote for the former Massachusetts governor is a vote for Satan.

That's the word from Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV program as well as LivePrayer.com.

"If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" he writes in his daily devotional to be sent out to 2.4 million e-mail subscribers tomorrow.

Sharpton, the Democratic Party activist and former presidential candidate, has been widely condemned for singling out Romney's faith as an issue in the campaign.

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," he said.

Keller also comes out swinging against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a cult.

"This message today is not about Mitt Romney," he writes. "Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell."

See? Dobson is restrained by comparison.

And so it is that an American election for president, the most powerful political office in the world, will be determined, in part, by what members of some religious sects think about the position of another religious sect on the relationship of Jesus and Satan. Or, "My god is better than your god." Because, you know, the (alleged) idea that Jesus and Satan are "spirit brothers" is so much more bizarre than the idea that God impregnated a mortal virgin with Jesus and created Satan as an angel.

Absolute insanity.

Comment: Mitt is not a Creedal Christian. However, he does believe in the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. For example, Harper's Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." One Baptist blogger stated "99 percent of the members of his Baptist church believe in the Mormon (and Early Christian) view of the Trinity. It is the preachers who insist on the Nicene Creed definition." It seems to me the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood). Evangelicals should read:
http://brucewilson.blogspot.com/2008/01/unintended-consequences-of-vote-for.html

Fees for Bags

February 10, 2008

I expressly ask for plastic bags at stores because my wife and I reuse them to clean the kitty box and to line our trash cans. I even have particular uses for particular bags from different stores. I do, however, joyfully throw these bags in the trash whenever they become punctured. Thank goodness I don't live in Denver. The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/08/10-cents-a-bag-surcharge-suggested/) recently reported:

Paper or plastic?

It really doesn't matter because either one might cost you a dime more under a proposal making the rounds at Denver City Hall.

An organization called BetterBagsColorado is lobbying the City Council for legislation to charge grocery store shoppers 10 cents for every plastic or paper bag they use to carry their goodies home.

The proposal, which would affect supermarkets with annual revenues of $2 million or more, is intended to help protect the environment by reducing the plastic and paper bags that end up in landfills.

First, there's a group called BetterBagsColorado? Deborah Hart of BetterBagsColorado told the News, "The only way you're going to change your behavior, really, is to have a little ouch at the checkout because you get enough ouches and you'll make a new habit out of it."

The article sensibly continues:

But Keith Christman, senior director of packaging for Progressive Bag Affiliates, a trade organization that represents manufacturers and recyclers of plastic bags, said such fees only make people buy more plastic trash bags or sandwich bags.

"We know from studies that we've done that 92 percent of consumers report that they reuse their plastic bags for things like disposing of waste around their house, litter bags in their cars, picking up after their pets and taking their lunch to work," he said.

The paper also lists other regions that have banned or restricted plastic grocery bags: 80 British cities, San Francisco, Melbourne, Ireland, China, and Bangladesh.

God forbid that grocers and their customers be able to decide on bag policy without political intervention.

This example proves once again that environmentalists consistently ignore the most important resource: human time. Often I swing by the grocery store unexpectedly or purchase many items I hadn't planned to buy. If the policy spreads, will I really have to keep bags on hand, just in case? Will I really have to make en extra effort to purchase other plastic bags for my needs, or figure out how to do without? Even though the local grocery store promises to recycle plastic bags (though I'm not sure how effective that is), I don't collect punctured bags for recycling simply because I have better things to do with my time. But, for environmentalists, no amount of wasted human time matters in the context of a miniscule contributor to landfills and global warming. Call it death by a thousand-thousand "ouches."

'First Freedom First'

February 11, 2008

A reader pointed me to FirstFreedomFirst.org, a project of The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The site encourages people to ask candidates (http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/getinvolved/questions-to-ask-candidates) ten questions.

First Freedom asks whether candidates believe that "America is a 'Christian Nation'," or, alternately, that "everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called 'a wall of separation' between church and state." First Freedom also asks candidates whether they believe that "one's right to disbelieve in God is protected" by law. Those questions are fine.

Unfortunately, other questions are ambiguous or otherwise problematic. Moreover, they are not nearly as useful as the (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/churchstate-separation-endorsed-by.html) five questions that I have proposed.

First Freedom does not ask any question specifically about abortion. Its final question asks, "What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?" But various Christians can and do rationalize bans on abortion and stem-cell research on the (alleged) basis of "science," so the question accomplishes little.

I, on the other hand, ask candidates to declare whether they "Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion" and "Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research."

Even worse, First Freedom implies that it's fine for government to forcibly transfer wealth to religious groups. The site asks, "Should 'faith-based' charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?" But forcing people to fund "'faith-based' charities" violates the rights of those who do not wish to fund such organizations. That is why I ask whether candidates "Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as 'faith-based' welfare." Freedom of religion entails the right not to fund religious groups.

First Freedom asks, "Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?" "Allowed," by whom? The question implies that pharmacists must be subjected to federal controls. My view is that pharmacists have the right to conduct business however they see fit (so long as they do not damage their clients through fraud, negligence, or other abuses); what medicines a pharmacist sells should be strictly up to that pharmacist. If you don't like the policies of a particular pharmacist, you are free do to business with another pharmacist and to publicly criticize the one you don't like. The separation of church and state implies that the state cannot force business owners to act against their religious beliefs.

First Freedom asks, "Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?" The thrust of the question is fine, given modern laws, yet my deeper problem is with the tax laws. I don't think any advocacy group should be subjected to taxation or federal rules. But, then again, I do not think that any business or group should be subject to taxation; every group should be "tax exempt" and free from federal rules. (I'm not a a fan of taxation in general, but I think taxing individuals only would be a vast improvement over taxing individuals as well as groups.)

First Freedom asks two questions about "public" schools: "Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me? Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?" These questions are pretty good, but the problem lies with the definition of a "public" school. While my questions don't include a specific reference to school prayer, my question about creationism is more precise: I ask whether candidates "Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science."

First Freedom asks, "Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?" This is a poor question because it focuses on rights of conscience rather than rights of contract. What about people who are not part of "diverse communities of faith?" The point is that contract law—of which marriage law is a type—ought not be driven by religious dogma. I favor "domestic partnerships" for gay couples because they have the right to enter contractual relationships just as heterosexual couples do.

However pleased I am to see First Freedom taking up the fight for the separation of church and state, the organization cannot be very effective until it develops a consistent set of principles.

Comment: Ari: I think that you have misunderstood a number of the issues. For example, we do not think that it's fine for government to forcibly transfer wealth to religious groups. Many of the questions are designed to make you think about the issue and pose provocative questions. Please go to www.firstfreedomfirst and take a look at each of the 'issues'--just click on the issue button. The explanations are clear. You may or may not agree with them but please, try to understand what we are saying. The questions to candidates are, again, designed to provoke dialogue. Clearly, you need to ask those questions in a manner that is most comfortable to you. Donna

Shooting No 'Accident'

February 11, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/11/driver-faces-charges/) reported today:

Mesa County sheriff's deputies are investigating an accidental shooting at a Grand Junction gun store Saturday, in which an employee was shot in the abdomen.

The accident happened at Jerry's Outdoor Sports, a sheriff's spokeswoman said Sunday. Witnesses said a customer had brought a .243-caliber rifle into the store for servicing. While the weapon was being worked on, it discharged a bullet...

Okay, when you're working on a gun that you haven't bothered to unload, the resulting discharge is not an "accident." Apparently the shooting was unintentional, but an "accident" it certainly was not. "Always keep your gun unloaded until you're ready to shoot." It's one of the essential three rules of gun safety.

Also, why does the Rocky use passive language? The gun "was being worked on?" The gun "discharged a bullet?" Where was the person during all of this working and discharging? Guns are inanimate objects; they don't fire themselves.

A 'Religious Foundation' for Law

February 12, 2008

Lynn Bartels wrote an interesting (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/12/lesbians-sue-over-marriage/) article for today's Rocky Mountain News that begins, "A lesbian couple wants to overturn a voter-approved ballot measure that defines marriage in Colorado as the union of one man and one woman."

Here, I am not so much interested in whether the measure should be overturned by the courts, but rather in what sort of arguments people are making on both sides. Here is the basic debate, as summarized by Bartels:

The lawsuit claims Amendment 43, which 56 percent of voters approved in 2006, is unconstitutional on several grounds, including it was "religiously motivated" and has the effect "of establishing religion."

Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who helped put the amendment on the ballot, laughed at that argument.

"If that's the case," he said, "we can throw out most of our laws because most are based on some moral perspective, and you could argue that is a religious foundation."

"We could even throw in the Declaration of Independence on those grounds: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... Creator."

I have heard Lundberg's basic argument many times before. The argument is that all laws have a moral foundation, and all moral truths have a divine origin, thus all laws have a religious base, and no law may be rejected merely because it has a religious base. Lundberg's argument is complete nonsense.

It is true that all just laws have a moral foundation. However, it is not true that moral truths depend upon a god. Our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not depend upon the existence of a supernatural "Creator." To take another example, murder laws are based on the immorality of unjustified killing; there are perfectly secular, non-religious, earth-bound reasons not to kill others (excepting cases of self-defense).

Various religions, on the other hand, offer a variety of "reasons" for killing others, along the lines that God said so. For example, Leviticus 20:13 advocates the murder of homosexuals: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (the Oxford Revised Standard).

The distinction that Lundberg fails to make is that some laws have a solid secular moral foundation (regardless of whether they also match some religious code), while other laws have a strictly religious foundation. Laws that arise solely from religious beliefs should be repealed or overturned for precisely that reason.

The question, then, is whether Amendment 43 is basically grounded in religion, or whether it also has a serious secular foundation. That is, is the issue fundamentally separable from religion? If it is, then it should not be overturned based on the establishment clause.

This is not always an easy thing to figure out. For example, clearly the Blue Laws—prohibitions on select economic activity on Sundays—have a religious background historically. However, today nobody seriously supports those laws on religious grounds. Instead, arguments in favor of such laws are essentially protectionist in nature. Thus, while the Blue Laws should be repealed because they violate rights of contract and property, it's not obvious that they should be overturned based on the establishment clause.

Clearly, Lundberg himself is strongly motivated by religion. For example, he (http://www.kevinlundberg.com/TheIssues/RecentArticles/Index.html) endorses Mike Huckabee for president because Huckabee's "faith and principles guide his every step." Given that Lundberg endorses the idea of religious faith guiding a politician's every step, mightn't we conclude that Lundberg's opposition to gay marriage (or partnership) is religiously motivated?

I looked up an old article about Amendment 43, and it too suggests a strong religious motivation for the measure:

Push to nix gay nuptials begins
But groups not all on same page—Focus on the Family and others disagree on whether a state amendment should ban civil unions too.
The Denver Post, December 9, 2005
Eric Gorski

What was envisioned as a broad coalition coming together to put a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage on the Colorado ballot next fall is divided over what exactly the measure should say.

According to sources involved in the discussions, the influential Colorado Springs evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family is pressing for a measure that would ban not only gay marriage but also same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships.

But other potential backers of an amendment—including the state's three Roman Catholic bishops—prefer a narrower, potentially less divisive ballot measure that would simply define marriage as between one man and one woman, sources said.

Another key player, the Rev. Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said Thursday that he stands with the Catholic position.

He said the institution of marriage deserves constitutional protection and that civil unions are a matter for the state legislature.

The (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/07/haggard-ends-teams-oversight-of-restoration/) fact that Haggard was later discovered to have purchased illegal drugs and various services from a male prostitute does not change the fact that that Amendment 43 was religiously motivated.

However, I'm not convinced that Amendment 43 violates the establishment clause, as there may be some plausible non-religious arguments in favor of it. If it's true that Amendment 43 allows for "domestic partnerships"—an equivalent of the marriage contract for gay couples—then that strikes me as a reasonable alternative that should be pursued through the legislature. The courts are not always the answer to religiously-motivated bigotry against homosexuals.

Comment by Mike Spalding: Actually marriage is a contract between individuals. If individuals want the blessing of their local church that is for them to decide. But this contract should not require the 'blessing' of the government. You could eliminate much of the strife around this issue by getting the government out of a contract between individuals.

Withhold Medicine from the Elderly and Obese?

February 12, 2008

Advocates of politically-controlled medicine in the U.S. and in Colorado typically make two major errors. First, they conflate today's mixed economy in medicine, in which decades of political controls have wreaked havoc with the provision of medical services, with the "free market." Second, they claim that a "free market" would heartlessly fail to provide medical services to people who need them.

For a little dose of reality, check out a January 28 article by the UK's Telegraph. It is socialized medicine that pits doctors against patients and that rations care:

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:09am GMT 28/01/2008

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone. ...

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.

This reminds me of Colorado's former Governor Dick Lamm, who once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lamm) said that the elderly have a "duty to die."

The central problem is that, when everyone is paying everyone else's medical bills, everyone wants to spend as much as possible on his or her own medical care but as little as possible on everyone else's medical care. Conflict is built into the system.

By contrast, a truly free market is characterized by voluntary cooperation among doctors, patients, insurers, and charitable organizations.

When politicians and bureaucrats control medicine, they necessarily tend to try to control the personal lives of the citizenry. The Telegraph continues:

The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.

Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.

Under politicized medicine, when medical care is "free," people have less incentive to take care of their health. And taxpayers, politicians, bureaucrats, and health-care providers have more incentive to try to micromanage the lives of everybody else. As Lin Zinser and Dr. Paul Hsieh (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) point out, "When the government pays our health care bills, in order to save money, it inevitably demands greater control in how we lead our daily lives."

Looking Good for Jesus

February 13, 2008

The AP (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330439,00.html) reports:

SINGAPORE—A cosmetics line that extolled the virtues of "Looking Good for Jesus" has been pulled from stores in Singapore after a number of complaints from shoppers, according to media reports Tuesday.

You can also view (http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,3307,00.html) photos of the products. (The zippered change purse is perhaps the most outrageous; it says, "Be Not Worthy; Be Noticed; Show Him the Money.")

The AP reports that The Straits Times quoted several critics. Nick Chui said, "These products trivialize Jesus Christ and Christianity. There are also sexual innuendoes in the messages and the way Jesus is portrayed in these products." Grace Ong said, "Why would anyone use religious figures to promote vanity products? It's very disrespectful and distasteful."

However, I doubt that anyone would have grown too excited over Zeus's Zit Zap or Isis Eye Cream.

I wondered whether some American entrepreneur has made the products available. (http://www.shophappytrails.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=looking+good+for+jesus&Search.x=0&Search.y=0) Sure enough. And (http://www.citydweller.net/shop/index.php?zenid=a76f40aa4716fcae5c3c6c9ec4f93d64&main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=looking+good+for+jesus) here and (http://www.perpetualkid.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2178) here. And (http://www.pulpshop.co.uk/ProductDetails.asp?ProductID=3625) in the UK.

Of course, the churches that I've seen don't exactly discourage the use of makeup and other self-enhancement products, particularly at singles' groups. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Faye_Messner) (Tammy Faye comes to mind.)

At least the Christians don't make (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/13/denmark.cartoon/index.html) death threats and go on destructive rampages when their prophet takes a little ribbing or serious criticism, the way that many followers of another popular religion do. Or would anyone dare to sell "Looking Good for Mohammed" on the streets of the Middle East or even in Paris, London, or Copenhagen?

European Papers Stand Up for Free Speech

February 13, 2008

When somebody (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/looking-good-for-jesus.html) started selling "Looking Good for Jesus" makeup kits in Singapore, Christians complained, as is their political right.

When a Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed in order to make a serious sociopolitical point, some Muslims allegedly tried to kill him.

Thankfully, not only did police disrupt the attempted murder, but various European newspapers republished the cartoon to protest the attempted murder and to stand for free speech. CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/13/denmark.cartoon/index.html) reports:

Newspapers reprint Prophet Mohammed cartoon

Newspapers across Europe Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday's arrests.

The cartoon was originally published by the Jullands-Posten (also spelled "Jyllands") in 2005. In 2006, I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/02/cartoon.html) republished all of the cartoons at FreeColorado.com, and I also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/12/rose.html) wrote and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/12/rosebor.html) cowrote articles defending Flemming Rose, who edited the paper at the time of the publications of the cartoons.

CNN quotes Westergaard's comments to the paper's web page: "Of course I fear for my life after the Danish Security and Intelligence Service informed me of the concrete plans of certain people to kill me. However, I have turned fear into anger and indignation. It has made me angry that a perfectly normal everyday activity which I used to do by the thousand was abused to set off such madness."

Thankfully, some people are starting to stand up to that madness.

A Very Costly Health-Care Solution

February 13, 2008

The following article originally was published by the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/) Rocky Mountain News:

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/30/speakout-a-very-costly-health-care-solution/) SPEAKOUT: A very costly health-care solution

By Linda Gorman and Ari Armstrong

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

As the health-care debate unfolds, we hear a lot about cost-shifting, the idea that some people are charged more for health care to make up for the fact that others do not pay. Various legislators, journalists and activists tell us that the state should adopt the Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform's recommendation to impose an individual mandate and force everyone to buy health insurance in order to end the unfairness of cost-shifting.

In fact, the commission's recommendations likely will shift more costs onto those who already have insurance. Along with the individual mandate, the commission recommends large subsidies for those whom the commission considers too poor to purchase the insurance it says they should have.

Under the commission's plan, people with health insurance would be taxed to subsidize health insurance for single people making as much as $40,000 a year, and families of four making as much as $82,600 a year. Many of these people pay for their own health care now, or have the assets to do so in an emergency.

The commission would also increase cost-shifting by forcing many more people into Medicaid.

Because Medicaid pays so little to providers, Medicaid as a whole generates far more uncompensated care and cost- shifting than the uninsured.

Those who advocate an individual mandate throw up all kinds of numbers to support the wild claims that the proposal would save everyone money. A Jan. 8 article from The Denver Post claims that "Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance."

The article attributes the number to state Rep. Anne McGihon, who said that the figure comes from Partnership for a Healthy Colorado. Partnership for a Healthy Colorado, in turn, says it got the figure from Families USA, which published a paper in 2005. That paper's estimates were unable to accurately predict the percentage of uninsured residents in Colorado. The paper also grossly overestimated at least some costs of uncompensated care.

The Lewin Group, the modeling firm hired by the commission to collect information about Colorado, reported total Colorado expenses for the uninsured of about $1.4 billion. Of that amount, around 45 percent, or $627 million, was paid out-of-pocket by the uninsured themselves.

Private philanthropy covered $197 million. Another $341 million was paid by the Veterans Administration, workers compensation and various public programs.

The leftover uncompensated costs, the ones that are not paid by any identifiable source, total $239 million. Divide $239 million by Colorado's 2.8 million insured residents, and the result is a maximum likely cost-shift of about $85 per insured individual per year.

To "fix" the problem of $239 million in cost-shifting, the commission proposes to increase health spending in Colorado by more than $3 billion, funded with an income tax increase of $800 million to $1.8 billion, new taxes on various politically incorrect types of food and drink, and an increase in the cigarette tax.

The sensible way to solve cost-shifting is to reduce health-care costs so that people fund their own health care, not to force people to buy insurance created by special-interest groups or to expand Medicaid. Professor Christopher Conover of Duke University estimates that 10 percent of annual health costs are caused by inefficient regulation. Results from experiments in consumer-directed health-care plans suggest that freeing consumers, providers and insurers can reduce costs by up to 30 percent.

The hostility of the commission to any plans like this was summed up in two votes that took place one after another on the same day. First the commission voted to recommend that the state legislature study single-payer health reform plans. Then it voted not to recommend that the legislature study consumer-directed reforms. While single-payer plans have failed around the world, consumer-directed reforms are succeeding wherever they're given the chance.

Linda Gorman, a senior fellow with the Independence Institute, serves on the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform. Ari Armstrong writes for FreeColorado.com.

March 8, 2008, Update: After reading Dave Kopel's (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/08/kopel-too-often-a-crutch/) article about citations, it occurred to me that I had not provided the citations for the article above, so here they are, as provided by Linda. The first eight references refer to the "experiments in consumer-directed health-care plans."

1. Willard G. Manning et al. June 1987. "Health Insurance and the Demand for medical Care: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment." American Economic Review, 77,3, p. 251-275.

* The abstract says "A catastrophic insurance plan reduces expenditures 31 percent relative to zero out-of-pocket price."

* In the body of the paper they predict expenditures and find that "Mean predicted expenditure in the free care plan is 46 percent higher than in the 95 percent plan…" (p. 260)

2. Agenda, FY 05-06 Joint Budget Committee Hearing, Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, State of Colorado, January 4 and 5 2005. In response to question 32 the Department wrote: Average monthly allocation per client, $3,925. Average monthly expenditure per clint:$3,131 per client. This works out to a monthly saving of 20%.

3. "Full placement feat: HSA helps Wendy's grill health costs," Employee Benefit News, June 1, 2006. Gale Infotrak version, record A146476601. Reports that the return on investment for HSA program is 221% due to the fact that health claims costs fell by 14% from 2004 to 2005 and are on track to be 4% less than last year.

4. Silicon Designs experiment in 2005/2006. Lower out-of-pocket costs from employees (4.9%) Lower company cost, from about 17% of salaries paid to about 15 percent of salaries paid. John Cole. "Report on One Year of Experience with HSAs/HDHPs," (http://www.silicondesigns.com/hsa.pdf) http://www.silicondesigns.com/hsa.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2008.

5. Humana, Inc. June 2005. "Health Care Consumers: Passive or Active? A Three-year Report on Humana's Consumer Solution." (http://apps.humana.com/marketing/documents.asp?file=519272) http://apps.humana.com/marketing/documents.asp?file=519272 accessed March 8, 2008. A report on a three year internal experiment with a consumer directed plan for Humana employees. Cost increases were lower than trend by roughly 15 percent over the two years.

6. Wharam et al. 2007. "Emergency Department Use and Subsequent Hospitalizations Among Members of a High-Deductible Health Plan," JAMA, 297, 1093-1102. This article looks at ED visits and subsequent rehospitalizations among members of a health plan that switched a fraction of insureds from a traditional HMO to a high deductible plan in 2001-2005. It concludes that ED visits decreased in those switched to high deductible plan with reductions primarily in repeat visits for conditions that were not high severity and in the rate of hospitalizations. It does not conclude anything about spending clinical outcomes.

7. J. Hsu et al. 2006. "Cost-sharing for emergency care and unfavorable clinical events: findings from the safety and financial ramifications of ED copayments study," Health Services Research, 41, 5, 1801-20. Another study of the effects of copayments on ED use that does not directly address expenditures but does find that ED visits decrease with no apparent health effects when payments range from $20 to $100.

8. John Mackey. October 2004. Whole Foods Market's Consumer-Driven Health Plan. A speech delivered at the State Policy Network Annual Meeting. Transcript available at (http://www.worldcongress.com/news/Mackey_Transcript.pdf) http://www.worldcongress.com/news/Mackey_Transcript.pdf.

Christopher J. Conover. October 4, 2004. Health Care Regulation a $169 Billion Hidden Tax, Policy Analysis No. 527, Cato Institute, Washington DC. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf) http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa527.pdf

A Second Look at First Freedom

February 14, 2008

On February 11, I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/first-freedom-first.html) discussed ten questions promoted by FirstFreedomFirst.org. "Donna" (whose identity I do not know) left the following comment:

Ari: I think that you have misunderstood a number of the issues. For example, we do not think that it's fine for government to forcibly transfer wealth to religious groups. Many of the questions are designed to make you think about the issue and pose provocative questions. Please go to www.firstfreedomfirst and take a look at each of the 'issues'—just click on the issue button. The explanations are clear. You may or may not agree with them but please, try to understand what we are saying. The questions to candidates are, again, designed to provoke dialogue. Clearly, you need to ask those questions in a manner that is most comfortable to you. Donna

Unfortunately, First Freedom's "explanations" do not support Donna's claims.

Donna criticizes me particularly for my evaluation of First Freedom's question about faith-based welfare. But my criticism of that question applies equally to the more-detailed write-up under (http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/resources/talkingpoints) "Talking About the Issues." Here's what First Freedom has to say on the matter:

No Religious Discrimination:

The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. But the so-called "faith-based initiative" violates that constitutional requirement and anti-discrimination laws. Created without congressional approval, the program allots billions of taxpayer dollars to social services run by favored religious organizations, allowing them to exercise religious discrimination in hiring and to proselytize people in need.

Americans should never be discriminated against on the basis of our religious beliefs. Government-funded jobs must be open to all qualified applicants regardless of their opinions about religion. Publicly supported programs should never require anyone to take part in religion. Non-discrimination is the American way.

If religious organizations use government funds to provide social services, they must not discriminate in hiring on religious grounds or deny services to people based on beliefs about faith. For people to be denied participation in a publicly funded program because of their beliefs about religion is simply un-American.

Religious organizations may define the content of their community services and hire only those who share their faith tradition in privately funded programs if they wish. But when using our tax dollars, it is not right for faith groups to discriminate in employment or in the provision of services.

The problem is framed as one of "discrimination." First Freedom does not criticize religious groups for taking tax dollars (or politicians for handing them out); First Freedom says only that "when using our tax dollars, it is not right for faith groups to discriminate in employment or in the provision of services."

But my whole point is that politicians have no right to forcibly transfer wealth to religious organizations, period. Such forcible transfer of wealth is morally wrong in all circumstances, without exception, whether or not discrimination is involved.

As I wrote previously, I am pleased, with reservations, "to see First Freedom taking up the fight for the separation of church and state." However, the organization is clearly leftist in its orientation. Not only does First Freedom at least tolerate (non-discriminatory) faith-based welfare, the organization also implies support for corporate taxation, tax-funded schools, and tax-funded research. I, on the other hand, advocate economic liberty along with religious liberty. Furthermore, I argue that, ultimately, the latter depends upon the former. By granting the legitimacy of expansive government control over our economic lives, First Freedom ultimately, implicitly and indirectly, undermines its own case for religious liberty.

Moreover, First Freedom explicitly endorses moral subjectivism as the alternative to faith-based politics. Consider the organization's passage about abortion:

Reproductive Health:

All Americans must be free to make choices concerning their own health in keeping with their personal beliefs.

Opponents of reproductive freedom often seek legislation based on their own religious doctrines. Creating laws that are grounded in religious belief, however, conflicts with the separation of church and state and compromises our religious liberty. We must be allowed to live our lives according to our own beliefs.

At the center of the reproductive health debate are important questions about individual conscience. Decisions about family planning and emergency contraceptives should be resolved privately, based on our personal beliefs. Individuals may look to their own faith or other ethical considerations as they make these choices, but the government must never mandate that all Americans must follow the tenets of one religious viewpoint. ...

"Personal beliefs... our own beliefs... personal beliefs..." Moral subjectivism is offered as the only alternative to "laws... grounded in religious belief." First Freedom is doomed to failure because of this. In any cultural contest between religious moral absolutism and moral subjectivism, ultimately the former will tend to win out. What is needed instead is an objective and secular morality that demonstrates the legitimacy of laws grounded in individual rights.

It is simply not the case that "We must be allowed to live our lives according to our own beliefs," regardless of the actions taken on the basis of those beliefs. The entire legitimate purpose of law is to forcibly prevent people from acting on beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others. Abortion bans are morally wrong precisely because they violate people's rights. Any position instead based merely on subjective "personal beliefs" is destined to lose.

Comment by Gideon: I really like how you get to the essence of the political issues here. Liberals continue to evade the basic philosophic questions and hide behind the "pro-choice" mantra. But if we cannot know whether the choice involves murder or not (or even whether it has any legal implications), then some people, who do think they know, will act to stop such actions and make them illegal. The principled stand for individual rights is the only one that can win in the long term.

Demonic International Airport

February 14, 2008

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8234829) hosts a photo and description of the giant new Mustang that now sits on the road to Denver International Airport. "Denver officials commissioned 'Mustang' from [sculptor Luis] Jimenez in 1992," the Post reports.

My first reaction to the sculpture was that it's "repugnant." My wife said, "It looks like it's possessed."

My wife's view seems to be a common one. On a separate (http://blogs.denverpost.com/westwatch/2008/02/12/opinions-please-on-massive-new-sculpture/) blog post, the Post includes a number of comments about the piece that are almost entirely negative. Here are the highlights: "diabolical," "hideous," "a demon horse... melt it down," "truly horrifying," "looked better when it was wrapped in plastic," "waste of tax payer money... beautiful if you are a satan follower," "more appropriate in a horror type theme park," "a debacle," "an embarrasment to Colorado," "likely to give children nightmares."

Schwartz Beats Polis's Health Argument

February 14, 2008

In a February 13 Speakout column in the Rocky Mountain News, Jared Polis, the gazillionaire running for Congress (in my district), (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/13/speakout-health-care-plan-stresses-prevention/) argued:

[L]et us not delude ourselves into thinking that we have anything close to a "free market" in health care. A free market would allow the uninsured to die on the hospital doorstep rather than provide them treatment they cannot pay for. Having made a moral decision not to allow people in our great country to die in this fashion, let us discuss how to more efficiently provide for sensible universal health care.

Polis is correct that we do not have a free market in health care, but his description of a free market is completely ridiculous. My dad and I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/freedom-is-compassionate-force-is-not.html) already addressed the argument that Polis makes, and I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/force-versus-choice-in-medical-care.html) wrote a lengthier critique along the same lines.

Brian Schwartz challenged Polis directly. In a comment to Polis's article, Schwartz argued:

Jared Polis writes: "A free market would allow the uninsured to die on the hospital doorstep rather than provide them treatment they cannot pay for."

This is a pathetic argument. Is Mr. Polis so heartless that he wouldn't help such a person if the law didn't compel him to do so? Or if he would, does he think that doctors are so heartless? Give me a break, Jared.

In the wake of the French Revolution, French economist Frederic Bastiat wrote that "every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all...It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Apparently nothing has changed.

And on his blog, Schwartz (http://www.wakalix.com/wp/2008/02/13/jared-polis-he-represents-the-worst-of-humanity/) adds:

[I]t is not hard to imagine that our community would provide such care even if a politician's law didn't compel us to do so. It's not hard to imagine, because people do it. Consider the (http://www.shrinershq.org/) Shriners Hospitals for Children. According to (http://charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6493) Charity Navigator, their total revenue exceeed $640 million in 2005. In Colorado, private philanthropy accounted for almost $200 million in medical care for the uninsured. ...

The above examples do not address emergency situations, but it's difficult to imagine that people in our society would voluntarily donate money to provide medical care for the uninsured in non-emergency situations, but not in emergency situations. Jared Polis, can you shed some light on this?

According to Jared Polis, a law is required compel doctors to treat the uninsured in emergency situations. Is Polis saying that doctors are so heartless and cruel that they would not treat someone for free? Is he saying that the electorate as too callous to fund charities to pay such that doctors could treat the uninsured in emergency situations?

Apparently, the answer is "yes." Polis writes that we have "made a moral decision not to allow people in our great country to die in this fashion." Not quite. Moral decisions are a matter of choice, not a threat. EMTALA threatens doctors with (http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm) penalties up to $50,000 for not complying.

So Jared Polis thinks that the citizens of Colorado and Colorado's physicians must be forced to do the right thing, since they lack the moral fiber to do it themselves. And yet, Jared Polis seeks public office, to represent us, the very people he doesn't trust to do the right thing. So if the (apparently immoral) citizens of Colorado's 2nd District elect Mr. Polis, how can we trust him to do the right thing?

Polis is clearly out of his depth. So he should fit right in should he move to Washington, D.C.

Hsieh on Abortion

February 15, 2008

On February 11, a committee of Colorado's legislature killed Bill 95, which would have imposed a 24-hour waiting period for abortions following mandated information about ultrasounds. (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/) Diana Hsieh sent the following letter to legislators (and gave me permission to reproduce it):

It is my understanding that SB 95 will be heard in the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee on Monday. The bill would require "a physician to provide information regarding an ultrasound to a woman prior to the woman's decision whether to have an abortion."

I urge you to oppose this bill. Colorado ought not impose any such restrictions on abortion.

The purpose of the bill is not to require genuine informed consent. Every woman who chooses to have an abortion knows that she is destroying a potential (but not actual) human being—not a shoe, plant, or a hippo. She violates no rights in doing so. She ought not be forced to look at pictures.

So the sole purpose of the bill is be to make abortion more costly. It is part of an attempt by foes of abortion to regulate it out of existence, since they cannot ban it out right. All such attempts morally wrong. They ought to be opposed.

Straw Men in Warm Phone Booths

February 15, 2008

Colorado State Representative Kevin Lundberg said that Governor Bill Ritter's Climate Action Plan is "predicated on junk science," (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8234828) according to The Denver Post.

It would be somewhat easier to take Lundberg's pronouncements about science seriously had he not (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/a-religious-foundation-for-law/) also claimed that "most of our laws" have a "religious foundation."

Nevertheless, the environmentalist response is no more persuasive. The Post continues:

Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and one of the plan's authors, said the carbon dioxide/global warming connection is widely accepted as scientific fact.

"You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth," he said.

Martin has created a straw man. Nobody disputes "climate change." Everybody grants that the earth's climate has long cycled between warm and cool periods. Nor does anybody doubt a "connection" between carbon dioxide and warming. However, one point in serious dispute is whether increased carbon dioxide causes or follows warming. Another point in serious dispute it to what degree industrialization has contributed to modern warming.

However, even if Martin were correct that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming and that the trend will eventually generate serious problems, his "solution"—to further socialize the economy—is hardly defensible (though it's terrific if you're a special-interest group looking to line your pockets with tax dollars and political favoritism). The best way to enable people to cope with nature, and to promote the sorts of technological innovations that will eventually create serious alternatives in energy production, is to achieve a free market.

Comment: I dislike this phrase "climate change." I can't imagine any scenario where government intervention could be justified to try and prevent "climate change." At least with global warming, there was a specific symptom that can be monitored to see if it actually mirrors the climate models that the doomsday computers predicted. Then we could change our behavior as needed (however I don't believe in government forcing change, I think if the situation warranted, people would voluntarily change their habits).

Muslims for Murder

February 17, 2008

(http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/european-papers-stand-up-for-free.html) Recently the authorities broke up an alleged plot to murder a Danish cartoonist for depicting Mohammed. In response, various newspapers republished the cartoon in defense of free speech.

In response, more Muslims called for the murder of the cartoonist.

The AP reports (via Fox News):

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330838,00.html) Muslims March Against Reprinting of Danish Newspaper Cartoons Depicting Muhammad
Friday, February 15, 2008

Muslims protested Friday in the Gaza Strip, Pakistan and Denmark against the reprinting of a Danish newspaper cartoon depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Thousands of residents in the conservative Gaza Strip ruled by the militant Islamic Hamas movement marched in the Jebaliya refugee camp chanting: "What Denmark said is heresy." ...

And in Denmark, a prominent Danish imam urged rioting youth to stop setting fires and hurling rocks at police.

At the International Islamic University in Islamabad, Mahmood Sadiqui said, "We are even ready to sacrifice our life for our beloved Prophet." The AP continues:

About 200 people held a similar rally in Multan, a main city in the eastern Punjab province, burning Danish flags and chanting "Death to the Cartoonist!" ...

Mohammad Imran, a student leader from Islami Jamiat Talba, a student organization linked with Pakistan's largest Islamic political group, Jamaat-e-Islami, called the cartoon "blasphemous."

"We demand the rulers to sever diplomatic ties" with Denmark and Sweden for publishing the cartoons. "The cartoonist and publisher must be hanged."

The call to murder people for drawing pictures is religion-induced insanity. Muslims who support such measures—or even who fail to publicly condemn them—are barbarians at war with civilization.

And Westerners who continue to think that such murderous fanatics can be appeased with cash payments or political concessions are delusional.

'A Liberation Package'

February 17, 2008

Recently (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/stimulus-nonsense/) I criticized Bush's "stimulus" package, which essentially consists of deficit spending. On February 14, Forbes published an article by Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute titled, (http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/14/yaron-economy-regulation-oped-cx_ybr_0214yaron.html) "To Stimulate The Economy, Liberate It."

Brook begins by explaining that the key to economic growth is production, not "consumer spending." And "a productive, dynamic economy requires of a government is that it restrict itself to protecting property rights from force and fraud, and refrain from interfering in free production and trade." Brook then goes on to explain how existing political intrusions in the economy have created today's troubles. He summarizes the main causes of the "subprime meltdown:"

There is the Federal Reserve, which wrought havoc with the markets by manipulating interest rates, first setting them below the rate of inflation and then quintupling them.

The Fed's initial policy convinced subprime borrowers that if they took out mortgages tied to Fed rates, they could afford homes that they ordinarily couldn't. The Fed's artificially low rates fueled a borrowing spree and housing bubble that were instrumental in the subprime meltdown. Then there is the network of entities backed by the government, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were big champions of subprime lending and big propagandists for the idea that everyone needs to own a home to live the American Dream. Finally, there is the government's long-standing policy of assuring large financial institutions that they are "too big to fail," which encourages short-range, high-risk investments.

Brook briefly describes how various other restrictions and taxes harm economic productivity. He concludes: "What our economy needs is not a stimulation package, but a liberation package."

Unfortunately, it is a package in which few of today's politicians are interested.

Marriage, Homosexuality, and Amendment 43

February 18, 2008

What is the government's legitimate role in marriage? What distinctions may the government properly draw between unions of heterosexual and homosexual couples, if any?

Ryan Puzycki sent in the following comment on February 13 regarding my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/religious-foundation-for-law.html) previous post:

I enjoyed your post on "A 'Religious Foundation' for Law," but was intrigued by your conclusion that you're "not convinced that Amendment 43 violates the establishment clause, as there may be some plausible nonreligious arguments in favor of it." I have attempted, since becoming seriously interested in the issue of gay marriage, to find a secular reason against it. While other Objectivists have raised the possibility that there might be valid arguments against it, none have indicated what those arguments may be. To date, I still have not heard a valid secular argument. From this viewpoint, I do not think there is any way to reconcile Amendment 43.

If marriage is only a religious institution, then the state should have no business involving itself in any aspect of it whatsoever. Those who are married should practice it as a sacred rite, such as the Eucharist or holy orders, outside the authority of the state in the privacy of their homes and churches. The establishment clause would prohibit state interference in the matter, and it would be left to the churches, rightly, to decide whom they are willing to marry. The secular state would still have an obligation to protect those who are unwilling or too young from marriage and to protect the right of the consenting and legally-aged to practice the rite, but otherwise it should confer no special rights, privileges, or benefits.

In upholding the wall of separation, the State would Catholics to marry only one man to one woman, Unitarians to marry gays, and even Mormons to marry one man to several women—and it would prevent Muslims from marrying a man to a child. The state would have no business sanctioning marriage, as a religious institution, nor offering a secular, civil equivalent. Indeed, there could be no to secular equivalent to a holy union made inviolate by God. In the eyes of the secular state, marriage would be nothing more than a religious observance—but it would still have the obligation to protect those who wish to practice it. Of course, conversely, religions would have no right nor incentive to ask the state to interfere in religious affairs.

However, marriage is not only a religious institution. Indeed, in the secular realm, marriage is a contract between consenting adults. The marriage contract has a secular, legal, and necessary basis for the protection of, for instance, the transfer of property between spouses upon death and also the legal adoption of a spouse's children. This is not an exhaustive list, but a full list would, of course, exclude tax incentives and other state conferred "benefits." The state's role is merely to enforce that the contract is between consenting adults by protecting the rights of either party if the terms of the contract are breached. And, as with other contracts, the state has no business delimiting the gender of the parties involved (or, even, how many parties are involved). Amendment 43, therefore, nullifies equal protection before the law (14th Amendment) by delimiting who is allowed to contract and who is not.

I think the unconstitutionality of this is made more clear by considering what Amendment 43 would mean if it were translated to other contracts. The state rightly does not dictate the gender or sexual orientation of parties contracting for mortgages, car sales, employment, or transfers of property. In that vein, Amendment 43's potential allowance for "domestic partnerships" is entirely irrelevant. In the same way that the state cannot provide "separate but equal" services for blacks and whites, it is equally unconstitutional to mandate heterosexual loans, homosexual mortgages, and certainly separate classifications for marriages. On the wedding train, what is the constitutional basis for reserving a "civil union" car for Plessy and a "marriage" car for Ferguson? The concepts of "domestic partnership" and "civil union" denote a second-class status to gay marriages. "Separate" is inherently unequal.

Based on the religious motivations that spurred Amendment 43 alone, it should be overturned as unconstitutional. But, even if the Amendment were not religiously inspired, there would be no constitutional or secular basis for a state mandate that discriminates based on sexual orientation. The 14th Amendment is a reminder that the government's primary function is to protect rights equally for all individuals—not to confer to or deny them any. Insofar as the government has an obligation to enforce contracts, it cannot do so if it legally prohibits individuals from contracting. The state has a duty to recognize and protect the right of any and all adults to consent to a legal union. Therefore, if the state is to refer to such a union as a "marriage," it should recognize only one marriage contract for all consenting adults.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts in response to this, and in light of your post.

Best regards,

Ryan Puzycki

I appreciate the subtle points that Puzycki brings up. I largely agree with Puzycki—except that I'm still not convinced that Amendment 43 should be overturned by the courts.

I emphatically add that I did not support Amendment 43. I voted against it. It was not one of my major issues of the year, though, for I was busy opposing increased wage controls (which passed) and supporting the partial re-legalization marijuana (which failed). I did (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/091506.html) write the following about an alternative measure (which also failed): "Referendum I would create domestic partnerships. It makes sense to assure legal standing for gay couples."

I agreed with Diana Hsieh's (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/10/voting-in-colorado.html) take on the two measures:

Amendment 43—Marriage . . . My vote: No! This amendment is the darling of the Religious Right. ... It must be defeated.

Referendum I—Domestic Partnerships . . . My vote: Yes. Voting "yes" on this referendum is perhaps the most clear way of rejecting Christian government in Colorado this election. I do worry that permitting gay marriage will usher in major subjectivism in marriage law, e.g. marry whomever you please, including two women, three men, and a goat. However, that's not a problem with gay marriage (or domestic partnerships) per se, but rather with people's failure to understand the proper grounds of marriage. Moreover, I regard that subjectivism as far less evil—and far less likely—than a return to a seriously religious conception of marriage. On that view, Paul and I aren't really married since we're not producing more children for God and community. For an example of that view, see (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004760) this OpinionJournal op-ed by a Methodist Pastor. Oh, and don't miss (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm) Augustine's fantastically revolting views on marriage. Moreover, consider the main argument in our Colorado "Blue Book" against the referendum:

"Domestic partnerships diminish the significance of marriage for society by reducing marriage to a list of benefits and responsibilities. The benefits given to married couples are intended to support child rearing by one man and one woman. The state has an interest in restricting recognition and legal protection to these married couples to provide stability for the individuals, their families, and the broader community."

In other words, marriage is a mysterious gift from God, not to be understood in words by man. Also, the sole justification for marriage is the demands of raising proper children in a stable family and community. People who choose not to procreate have no claim to the goods of marriage. In general, marriage is not two people committing to integrating their lives according to their own values. That's obviously too selfish and too individualistic.

Unfortunately, this "domestic partnership" measure will impose more government-mandated entitlements (e.g. health care and worker's compensation) upon businesses, but that's a problem with the government-mandated entitlements, not domestic partnership per se.

So I'd strongly recommend voting in favor of this measure.

Last year, I also wrote an (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/01/polygamy.html) article titled, "A Defense of Marriage for Couples." There is a "contractual basis of marriage," I argued, and it is among the government's legitimate functions to facilitate and uphold contracts. However, I saw no important difference between "gay marriage" and "domestic partnership;" I wrote that "gay marriage (or 'domestic partnership') rightly puts homosexual couples on equal footing with heterosexual couples..."

Puzycki writes, "Based on the religious motivations that spurred Amendment 43 alone, it should be overturned as unconstitutional." I disagree with this argument.

Take, for example, the abolition of slavery. Obviously that was religiously motivated. There may have been some abolitionists who were not Christians and who did not offer Christian reasons for abolishing slavery, but I am not able to name any. Obviously, we do not wish to re-institute slavery because its abolition was religiously motivated.

The important point, as I argued in my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/religious-foundation-for-law.html) recent post, is whether the reasons for a law are separable from religion: "[S]ome laws have a solid secular moral foundation (regardless of whether they also match some religious code), while other laws have a strictly religious foundation. Laws that arise solely from religious beliefs should be repealed or overturned for precisely that reason."

The protection of individual rights, regardless of race, does not fundamentally depend upon any religious doctrine. It is entirely separable from religion. For example, Ayn Rand eloquently (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html) argued against racism on purely secular grounds, and she (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualrights.html) argued that rights arise from man's nature as a reasoning being, which has nothing to do with race.

The spending of tax dollars to teach creationism is an example of a policy that is not separable from religion. Creationism promotes a distinctly religious view that a supernatural being or force created the world and life.

I'm still not convinced that Amendment 43, whatever its faults and problems, violates the establishment clause or the equal-protection clause. I wrote:

[T]here may be some plausible non-religious arguments in favor of it. If it's true that Amendment 43 allows for "domestic partnerships"—an equivalent of the marriage contract for gay couples—then that strikes me as a reasonable alternative that should be pursued through the legislature. The courts are not always the answer to religiously-motivated bigotry against homosexuals.

Note that I did not claim that the non-religious arguments must be valid. I claimed merely that they must be "plausible." (By the way, I know of no Objectivist who has claimed to make a valid argument against gay marriage, but I'd be interested in learning about such claims if they exist.)

I think that I can offer at least one such plausible argument: "The difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual domestic partnership is that only heterosexual marriage can result in one partner impregnating another. Obviously female domestic partners can become pregnant, but the sperm necessarily comes from a party external to the partnership. Male partners can adopt children but not give birth themselves. Thus, while the domestic partnership contract is substantially similar to the marriage contract, it must accommodate the real, biologically-based differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples."

I don't think that argument ultimately holds up, because heterosexual, married couples can also adopt children and use artificial insemination, and the marriage contract seems to accommodate such situations.

Here is another argument that is less plausible (because based on philosophical nominalism) but still not religious: "By common understanding, practically everyone sees 'marriage' as the union of a man and a woman. Thus, we need some other name to describe unions of homosexual couples."

I'm convinced that Amendment 43 was unnecessary, that it doesn't belong in the state's Constitution, and that it was largely motivated by bigotry rooted in religious dogma. Yet I am still not persuaded that Amendment 43 should be overturned by the courts based on the establishment or equal-protection clause. (I remain open to debate on this matter, and the argument about equal protection strikes me as more forceful.)

However, Puzycki's main point seems to be that homosexual couples deserve comparable protection of contract law, and on this point I quite agree.

February 21 Update: Readers are welcome to read the (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/further-discussion-of-gay-marriage.html) further discussion on this topic.

Legislature Tries to Restrict Guns, Abortion

February 18, 2008

The following column (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080218/COLUMNISTS/533545872) originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

February 18, 2008

Pick your poison: Dems and GOP both violate rights

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

A legislative committee heard two bills in two weeks. Both votes split along party lines. The first week, all the Democrats voted to violate our rights. The second week, all the Republicans did so.

Senator Sue Windels sponsored Bill 49 to impose criminal penalties on gun owners who do not store their guns the way that district attorneys deem proper after the fact. On Monday, February 4, the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee heard the bill. Windels joined with fellow Democrats Chris Romer and Abel Tapia to pass the bill to the next committee, over the objections of Republicans Bill Cadman and David Schultheis.

On February 11, the committee heard Schultheis's Bill 95 (which Cadman cosponsored) to impose criminal penalties on doctors who fail to observe a 24-hour waiting period for their clients seeking an abortion. Both Republicans voted for the bill, though the Democrats killed it.

While the bills cover quite different situations, they have much in common. Both bills would impose useless additions to Colorado's already-massive books of statutes. Both would create arbitrary and onerous restrictions on activities that people have a right to pursue but that some ultimately want to ban altogether.

Let's first look at the gun bill. As the Daily Sentinel pointed out earlier in the month, existing laws already cover cases of placing children in danger. The effect of Bill 49 would be to discourage citizens from keeping firearms for self-defense. When citizens are too afraid of prosecution to defend themselves, the advantage goes to the real criminals.

As Cadman said in a Republican press release, "We have a good balance right now between the need to keep kids from misusing guns and the right of homeowners to be able to defend their families. This bill would upset that balance by giving home intruders the upper hand and tying the hands of homeowners... This bill likely would have a chilling effect on gun ownership."

Originally, Bill 49 stated that it applied if a gun owner "reasonably should know that a minor would be able to gain access to the firearm" without permission. And who gets to decide what's "reasonable?" Prosecutors, some of whom are unfriendly toward defensive gun ownership. The committee dropped that language in favor of a line that says the bill applies in cases of "criminal negligence." In other words, you commit "criminal negligence" if you commit "criminal negligence"—again as determined by prosecutors.

Another problem with the bill is that it says it doesn't apply if a minor obtains the gun through burglary or robbery. So does the criminal prosecution of the gun owner hinge upon the criminal conviction of the minor? Who decides whether the minor should face charges? Apparently, again the prosecutor gets to make the call.

Of course, while many Colorado Democrats don't express this motivation, many activists who favor storage laws, waiting periods, and other restrictions ultimately want to ban the use and ownership of guns, at least for defensive purposes.

What about the abortion bill? Bill 95 would have required a doctor to provide information about ultrasounds to all women seeking an abortion, then imposed a 24-hour waiting period. But women already know what abortion implies—the destruction of a potential but not actual person—and are already free to order ultrasounds.

As Jody Berger of Planned Parenthood pointed out to us, an ultrasound cannot even detect a pregnancy before five weeks. And Planned Parenthood already administers an ultrasound for every abortion in its clinics, which offer abortions from around five to eighteen weeks of pregnancy. (The clinics offer "morning after" medications up to 72 hours following intercourse.)

Berger said, "What would have been onerous is the 24-hour waiting period. In a lot of rural areas, a doctor is available only one day a week. And clients who drive three or four hours to come to the Planned Parenthood center in Denver have to make that drive twice. If they come with their husband or boyfriend, that means two people have to take two days off of work."

So Schultheis, who is on record opposing waiting periods for purchases of firearms, is the sponsor of the bill to impose waiting periods for abortions.

Mike Saccone recorded the hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats alike in his January 23 and February 11 stories for the Sentinel. Shultheis said his bill was "trying to whatever degree we can to reduce the number of abortions"—the exact attitude of the anti-gun lobby toward gun ownership. Of course, Schultheis really wants to ban abortion, just as many anti-gun activists ultimately want to ban defensive gun ownership.

And Romer said of the abortion bill, "It puts a burden on certain people"—the way that the gun bill that Romer voted for puts a burden on gun owners.

These Democrats and Republicans deserve each other. But Colorado deserves better.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Rose on the Danish Cartoons

February 19, 2008

I have been (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/muslims-for-murder.html) posting about the desire and alleged attempt of various Muslims to murder a cartoonist for depicting Mohammad. On February 15, Flemming Rose came out with an (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303586375870157.html) excellent article on the matter for the Wall Street Journal. Rose is the the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published the cartoon.

Rose reviews the basic facts about the cartoonist:

For the past three months [Kurt] Westergaard and his wife have been on the run. Mr. Westergaard did the most famous of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005—the one depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban. The cartoon was a satirical comment on the fact that some Muslims are committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam and the prophet. Tragically, Mr. Westergaard's fate has proven the point of his cartoon: In the early hours of Tuesday morning Danish police arrested three men who allegedly had been plotting to kill him.

Thankfully, Rose points out, "17 Danish newspapers have published Mr. Westergaard's cartoon" in defense of free speech. Rose adds, "As George Orwell put it in the suppressed preface to 'Animal Farm': 'If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'."

Unfortunately, the threats against the cartoonist are just the tip of the iceberg. Rose continues:

In Oslo a gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings, showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog's body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been under police protection since the fall of 2007. In Holland the municipal museum in The Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera of gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali; Ms. Hera has received several death threats and is in hiding. In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. In Egypt bloggers are in jail after having "insulted Islam." In Afghanistan the 23-year-old Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed "blasphemous" material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. And in India the Bengal writer Taslima Nasreen is in a safe house after having been threatened by people who don't like her books.

Quite obviously, liberty, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion, is incompatible with Islam as practiced in these cases. Sadly, Muslim voices defending freedom of speech are too few and too quiet.

Rose goes on to argue in the article that the West must not bend to these threats against freedom of speech, but must instead recommit itself to its defense. Those who value their liberty owe Rose a debt of gratitude for his courageous and tireless defense of freedom. And now Westergaard too has become a hero of liberty.

AFP (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jILlENBaY164ogz9_WLr6uEIYcxQ) reports that Westergaard "said he considered himself an atheist, adding: 'I feel that I am fighting a righteous fight to defend freedom of expression, which is under threat'."

(Thanks to Lin Zinser of (http://www.westandfirm.org/) FIRM for links to both articles.)

Americans worthy of the title will join Westergaard's righteous fight.

'Do Not Be a Hero'

February 19, 2008

Kirk Mitchell (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8271956) writes for the February 15 Denver Post:

"If danger presents itself, flee the area, if at all possible, or seek sanctuary in a locked classroom, restroom," according to one memo sent to staffers and students at metro campuses of the University of Colorado. "Do not be a hero. Be a good witness. Report what you have seen as soon as you can notify the campus police."

Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/19/carroll-fear-driven-consensus/) has responded with mild criticism:

People don't need exhortations to flee danger. That's what they will do almost every time without a prod.

But why the explicit warning against heroism?

Of course a university shouldn't encourage reckless behavior in a crisis, or try to shame people into taking chances they would otherwise avoid. Most of us aren't cut out for heroics anyway.

But do we really want to insist that people avoid heroics, as if there were something faintly disreputable about those who spontaneously risk their lives on behalf of others?

As my readers might expect, I want to offer a somewhat stronger criticism.

Generally, the advice to flee is appropriate for students. The problem with the advice is that it is not always possible to flee. In some cases, heroic action is the only reasonable way to protect one's life. Students who are unable to flee or "seek sanctuary" should attack, as their only other option is to wait to be murdered. For example, at a school shooting in Oregon, the killer (http://www.cnn.com/US/9805/21/school.shooting.2/index.html) "was tackled by other students." Here is a more detailed account of that story, as (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/08/11/national/main8610.shtml) reported by the AP:

Jake Ryker was shot in the chest but managed to tackle a schoolmate who had opened fire in the Thurston High School cafeteria.

On Monday night, Jake's father, a Navy diver wearing his full dress uniform, presented him with the highest honor in the Boy Scouts of America.

Robert Ryker's hands trembled as he pinned the red ribbon with gold medallion of the Honor Medal with Crossed Palms to Jake's chest before a crowd of about 300 people at Thurston Christian Church. ...

Jake and his younger brother, Josh, 14, and three other Boy Scouts subdued the gunman after two other Thurston students were killed and 22 wounded on May 21.

Josh Ryker, Douglas and David Ure, and Adam Walburger all were presented Monday night with the Honor Medal, the second-highest honor in scouting. It was the first time in the 88-year history of the Boy Scouts that five medals for heroism were awarded at one time.

"I believe it was no coincidence that the five who stopped the shooting were Scouts," said Jerry Dempsy, Oregon Trail Council executive for the Boy Scouts. "I'm so grateful they stopped the killing when they did."

Jake was shot through the chest during the shooting spree. When the gunman ran out of ammunition and started to reload, Jake tackled him, and was shot in a finger. His brother and the three other Scouts piled on and held the shooter until help arrived.

(http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/does-anyone-remember-jake-ryker/) Notably,"Jake Ryker gave credit to the fact that he had taken a marksmanship and safety training program given by the National Rifle Association. ... His father, Rob Ryker said that both Jake and his 14-year-old brother, Josh, had taken the course." Because of his training, Ryker knew when to tackle the killer. (Dave Kopel mentions Ryker in his (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNmZDZhYzg4NTMwODFlMzFmOThjNjhkODMzYzYzMWI=) article about "common-sense school protection.")

And, sometimes, more mature and better-trained students may choose to intervene rather than flee, if they reasonably believe that they can save lives without putting themselves in too great a danger. For example, at the Appalachian School of Law, two armed students (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting#Students_subdued_the_shooter) subdued a murderer.

Mitchell's article does not make clear whether the "memo sent to staffers and students" was intended also as advice for staffers, or as information for staffers to pass along to students. If it was intended as advice for staffers, then the advice is despicable, for instructors have accepted as a chosen responsibility the care of their students. While no staffer should place him or herself in undue danger without good reason, instructors have a moral responsibility to take reasonable, heroic actions to protect their students, as (http://www.freecolorado.com/1999/10/myrick.html) Joel Myrick did.

Outside of the school environment, there is (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/12/assams-semiautomatic-baretta.html) Jeanne Assam, who used her concealed, Beretta 9 mm semiautomatic handgun to shoot a murderer at New Life Church.

The rash of copy-cat school shootings, (http://davekopel.com/Media/RMN/2007/Reducing-the-risk-of-copycat-killers.htm) in part encouraged by irresponsible media coverage, reflect a cultural sickness in which moral relativism and nihilism undermine some people's values and very lives. The solution to such problems is not to impose gun restrictions that fail to impede criminals but that only make self-defense more difficult.

CU's policy is only helping to create what Jeff Snyder calls a (http://www.accuratepress.net/cow.html) "Nation of Cowards." But cowardice only encourages criminals.

If CU's administrators wanted to act to save lives in the event of a violent attack—as well as to deter such attacks—they would establish a policy of allowing trained staffers to carry concealed handguns. The memo to staffers should then read, "If someone starts attacking your students with intent to kill, then, within reasonable guidelines of safety appropriate to an emergency situation, shoot the bastard."

Norris: Christian Ranger

February 20, 2008

Ordinarily, I don't care what actors think about politics. But I do care about actors who espouse popular conservative views on popular conservative forums. Especially when those actors endorse relatively successful politicians who promise us faith-based politics.

Townhall.com has published at least a couple of Chuck Norris's articles praising Mike Huckabee. Here is one segment from Norris's (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/02/19/are_we_reaping_what_weve_sown) recent piece about murder in our society:

We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We've abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment: "Thou shall not murder."

Once we weed out the platitudes, we are left with the following substantive claims: the teaching of evolution as science, abortion, irreligion, and moral non-absolutism are responsible for murder.

In other words, Norris believes that those who reject mythological explanations of the creation of the world and of life, those who find a distinction between a fertilized egg and a person, and those who decline to subordinate their lives to an invented supernatural being, all promote murder. And let's not look at the history of what those who believe the opposite tend to do.

Norris also wishes us to believe that the foundation of moral absolutism is mythology and supernaturalism. Perhaps it requires the sensibilities of one trained in the art of make-believe to see beyond the distinction between rigorously imposed religious rules and objective moral absolutes.

But Norris delivers the knock-out blow in his closing paragraph: "If Psalm 33:12 says, 'Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,' then what will be the state of blessedness for the nation that abandons God and his moral code of conduct?" Who can argue with logic like that?

The Sin is the Tax

February 20, 2008

So-called "sin taxes" are appropriately named, because it is morally wrong to forcibly transfer wealth even if the taxes discriminate against politically-incorrect behavior. Here's the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/19/beer-tax-health-care/) latest from the Rocky Mountain News:

...Denver Democrat [Rep. Jerry Frangas] very quietly drafted a bill introduced this week that would raise alcohol taxes 2 percent to cover all of Colorado's 180,000 uninsured children.

The tax of 11 cents, for example, on a $5.49 six-pack of Budweiser, would raise about $57 million for the state children's health care program. When paired with federal matching funds, Frangas said it would provide up to $150 million.

In other words, through the magic of federal "matching" welfare payments, Frangas can capture a portion of the national income tax by imposing a state sales tax. That way, Frangas can also force people in every other state to fund the health care of select Coloradans. Ah, the glories of federalism in the modern age.

But socialized medicine is fine, "for the children," right? On the contrary, generally parents have a moral obligation to fund their own children's health-care expenses, and they should plan their families and expenses accordingly. Of course, parents whose children suffer unexpected, catastrophic illnesses already benefit from a wide array of voluntary charity programs (often in addition to insurance payments), as is appropriate. All of us want to see innocent children taken care of, which is exactly why even today's mixed economy often provides for their needs and why a truly free market would do so even better. However, unlike force-funded welfare, voluntary charity is more likely to discourage dependency and irresponsibility on the part of the parents. Offhand, I don't have a good estimate for how much socialized medicine "for the children" displaces private insurance (and discourages parental responsibility), but the figure is large. And, obviously, socialized medicine "for the children" is merely a stepping stone to socialized medicine for everyone. As one advocate of politically-funded medicine (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=health_care_descriptions) reportedly said, "[S]ome of you may think of me as an incrementalist. I prefer to think of myself as a sneaky sequentialist."

If politicians really wanted to help, they would repeal the interventions that have artificially increased the costs of health care and insurance and reduced access to medical services especially among the poor (as Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) explain.)

What about a tax on alcohol? I oppose sales taxes in general. But, so long as there is a sales tax, it is wrong to discriminate against some people (in this case consumers of alcoholic beverages) and select legal activities. No doubt advocates of the tax on alcohol will argue that the tax would fund a "worthy" welfare program while discouraging a vice. But it is the proper role of government to protect individual rights, not to socially engineer behavior desired by politicians. While obviously alcohol can be abused—as can many other properly legal products—there is nothing inherently rights-violating or irresponsible about drinking alcohol. And purchasers of alcohol ought not be uniquely forced to subsidize other people's children.

Further Discussion of Gay Marriage

February 21, 2008

Here Ryan Puzycki and I continue our (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/marriage-homosexuality-and-amendment-43/) previous discussion regarding gay marriage and Colorado's Amendment 43, which defines "marriage" as between a man and woman. To review briefly, we both agree that gay couples should have the ability to contract as heterosexual couples do in romantic unions. However, while Puzycki believes that Amendment 43 should be overturned by the courts, I'm not so sure.

Following is Puzycki's reply of February 19:

Thanks for your response post.

In asserting that Amendment 43 should be overturned "[b]ased on the religious motivations," I was reiterating my own interpretation of the Amendment. As I understand it, it does not seem to have any secular foundation and seems to rise only from religious beliefs, but the language of the Amendment itself is not religious in nature. So, I agree that this would be difficult to overturn on the establishment clause. But, if the Amendment is interpreted to allow only for "marriages" with no provision for "domestic partnerships," then a very strong argument would still have to be invented to defend a possible secular foundation for why homosexual couples should not be afforded any partnership rights.

However, even if we consider the possible allowance for domestic partnerships, then we would have to explain the need to create "domestic partnerships" apart from "marriage." You have suggested as a "plausible argument" the potentiality of heterosexual marriages to result in children. Notwithstanding the facts you mentioned that homosexual couples can adopt and use artificial insemination, Diana Hsieh already made the valid point that procreation is not an acceptable basis for marriage. As for the historical nominalist argument, that is easily dismissed, as well. I have still heard no secular arguments that stand on their feet.

So, what justification does the government have for establishing a "marriage" for heterosexual couples and a "domestic partnership" for homosexual couples? Even if marriages and domestic partnerships afforded the same rights to couples of either sexual orientation, one must ask why it is necessary for the government to make a legal distinction between straights and gays. As I wrote in my earlier email, "separate" implies inequality--or why else make the distinction? The establishment of "domestic partnerships" would denigrate gays to a second-class status before the law, at least as far as marriage contracts are concerned. The concept of blind justice is meant to suggest that laws should be objective, but if the law instead sees a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is not.

Before the law, all individuals must be afforded equal protection of their rights as stipulated in the 14th Amendment. It would therefore be unconstitutional to make any law that establishes separate legal status to individuals based on their sexual orientation. Before the law, sexual orientation is irrelevant. A murderer's sexual orientation is no more relevant to the crime committed than is a homebuyer's sexual orientation to a loan. The only questions the law can legitimately ask in regard to marriage are: are these two individuals of age and did they both consent?

While it seems obvious that Amendment 43 was motivated by religion, the Amendment itself makes no mention of God, so demonstrating the Amendment's intent would be better left to a sophisticated lawyer who could make a clear case based on the establishment clause. However, the Amendment is, clearly, a violation of the equal protection clause because it does not explicitly protect the rights of gays to contract in any form of "marriage" and, secondly, because the potential allowance it implies is inherently unequal and legally baseless.

On that basis, then, Colorado's courts should overturn the Amendment.

Our disagreement is not about Amendment 43—we both disapprove of it—but whether it should be overturned by the courts based on the establishment and/or equal-protection clause. I think we also agree that the amendment more plausibly violates the equal-protection clause. However, I'm still going to argue that it should not be overturned even for that reason, though my argument is tentative.

In Colorado, by law the state government distributes a document commonly called the "blue book" that contains the language of ballot measures as well as summaries of arguments from proponents and opponents. The (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/BlueBook2006.pdf) 2006 blue-book information about Amendment 43 pertains to this discussion:

Summary and Analysis

Definitions of marriage affecting Coloradans. Federal statutes define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws relating to marital status. Colorado statutes define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of the state's laws relating to marital status.

For a marriage to be valid under Colorado statutes, it must be: (1) between a man and a woman; and (2) licensed, solemnized, and registered according to established procedures. In addition, Colorado recognizes common law marriage between a man and a woman who live together and hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife. Common law marriages are treated exactly the same as licensed marriages.

Legal effects of marriage in Colorado. The marriage relationship in Colorado provides spouses with a number of legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits, including:

* collecting benefits such as pensions, life insurance, and workers' compensation without being

designated as a beneficiary;

* jointly incurring and being held liable for debts;

* making medical treatment decisions for each other;

* protection from discrimination based on marital status in areas such as employment and housing;

* filing income taxes jointly; and

* ending a marriage and distributing property through a legal process.

Arguments For

1) The public has an interest in preserving the commonly accepted definition of marriage. Marriage as an institution has historically consisted of one man and one woman and, as such, provides the optimal environment for creating, nurturing, and protecting children and preserving families.

2) A constitutional amendment is necessary to avoid court rulings that expand marriage beyond one man and one woman in Colorado. In Massachusetts, a statutory definition was not sufficient to prevent a court from requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Any change to the definition of marriage should be determined by the voters, not judges.

Arguments Against

1) Language that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples does not belong in Colorado's Bill of Rights, which generally guarantees individual rights. Amendment 43 may be unconstitutional because it denies same-sex couples and their children the legal benefits and protections that are available to married couples and their children.

2) Adding the proposed language to the constitution is unnecessary because there is already a statutory ban in Colorado on any marriage that does not consist of one man and one woman. Additionally, federal statutes define marriage as between one man and one woman for purposes of federal laws.

I'm not finding much here relevant to the establishment clause. While I think the "arguments for" are faulty, I also think that they are separable from religion.

So what about the equal-protection clause? The second "argument for" claims that the goal is to prevent the courts from overturning state law. And, as an addition to the state's Constitution, Amendment 43 would restrict the action of state-level courts. But it would not stop federal courts from tossing it out on equal-protection grounds.

The first "argument against" expressly raises the matter of equal protection, claiming that Amendment 43 "denies same-sex couples and their children the legal benefits and protections that are available to married couples and their children." However, the second argument points out that "there is already a statutory ban in Colorado on any marriage that does not consist of one man and one woman."

As discussed previously, Amendment 43 does not seem to restrict "domestic partnerships" for gay couples. Thus, if a court were to intervene on equal-protection grounds, I think the more likely route would be for the court to require the state to allow for "domestic partnerships" in statute.

I have suggested that, regardless of the position of the courts, the legislature should provide for "domestic partnerships" through statute.

Would this, as Puzycki argues, still violate the equal-protection clause? I remain unconvinced.

Puzycki claims that offering "marriage" contracts for heterosexual couples but "domestic partnership" contracts for homosexual couples would create separate status for the two, and "'separate' implies inequality." However, unlike segregated schools, having two titles for contracts of romantic unions would not physically separate heterosexuals from homosexuals. The only difference that I can see is that the contract would have a different title on top, which doesn't strike me as much of an imposition.

I don't want to fall into the trap of failing to take the principled stand on this one. But I just don't see any significant difference between "marriages" and "domestic partnerships" for gay couples. Why fight for eliminating a distinction that doesn't matter? Adding "domestic partnerships" via statute would be a lot easier than removing Amendment 43 and instituting "marriage" for gay couples. As far as I can tell, we're not even talking about a "whole loaf" versus "half of a loaf" here; we're talking about the same loaf in a differently-labeled wrapper.

Comment by Ari: I promised Puzycki the final word, which follows:

Comment by Puzycki: Regarding the 2006 blue-book information, it would appear that Colorado failed to compile a complete summary of arguments against Amendment 43. As a resident of New York, I am not familiar with the marriage statutes of Colorado beyond your excerpts, but I would go further to extend my arguments against Amendment 43 to the statutory definition of marriage, at both the state and federal level. Ultimately, what I think is necessary is some sort of Supreme Court ruling to recognize that the Constitution already protects marriages/domestic partnerships for consenting adults. Basically, this ruling would recognize an existing individual right while rejecting the "states' right" to determine whose right to marry it can abrogate. My argument for why I think the Constitution already protects marriage rights is based on the Ninth Amendment, which reminds us that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate every right retained by the people, including the right to marry. Of course, the protection of this right (and every other) is recognized formally in the 14th Amendment. Finally, while you are right that having two titles for romantic unions would not physically separate heterosexuals from homosexuals, it does conceptually separate them from each other--which I think is fine if we're talking about sexual orientation, but not in terms of status before the law. "Marriage" and "domestic partnerships" might each be whole loaves, but one is whole grain and the other plain white. Why is it necessary to make this distinction? What is the legal basis for it? Thanks for your considerate responses to the issues I've raised. I look forward to your future posts.

Comment by Flibbert: Hi, Ari! Thanks for your follow-up post! Per your invitation, here's a link to my post on the topic: http://flibbertigibbet.mu.nu/gay_marriage_im_still_for_it I tend to agree with you up to the point of calling gay and straight marriages the same thing. I don't know why identical unions should have different names.

Comment by Brian: Stop arguing over whether marriage licenses should be granted solely to heterosexual couples or not. By doing so you are arguing under the false premise that the government should be a third, hidden party to a marriage contract. The only jurisdiction the government needs is the enforcement of a property contract (e.g. a prenuptial agreement) should one exist in regards to property division, inheritance, guardianship, etc. (In the absence of a contract, the government can fall back on common law and established precedence.) Bottom line... the government has no business in determining who can and can't get married as long as the parties involved can legally consent to a contract. If you know your history, marriage licenses were originally established in the 1920s as a means of preventing one group from marrying another, i.e., interracial marriages. Remember a license implies permission for an action that would otherwise be deemed illegal. (In contrast, a certificate is a recognition of a state of being, e.g. birth certificate.) Marriage licenses are one of a long string of miscegenation laws that stretched back to 1664 until as recently as 1967. Marriage licenses were born from discrimination, and discrimination is happening yet again where a vocal segment of the public co-opts the government to promote their agenda. The justification for Amendment 43 or similar legislation elsewhere, is irrelevant. The end effect is the same---a group of people is prevented from making a contract that others freely can. You and Puzycki quibbling over what Constitutional amendments apply is a waste of time. It's discrimination, plain and simple. The unfortunate part is that the government and tax payers have a financial incentive for keeping marriage licenses now that they've been established, regardless of whether they should be around or not. All these so-called arguments would be moot if marriages would go back to being private contracts with or without religious rubber stamping like they were for centuries. People are so short-sighted when they can only see as far back as their first birthday, if that.

Comment by Ari: I have not committed myself to a marriage "license," only a marriage contract. Contracts must by their nature be enforced by the government (ultimately). As the text regarding the amendment makes clear, Colorado already accepts "common law" marriage for heterosexual couples—but not for homosexual ones.

Comment by Brian: Yes contracts are to be enforced by government, but the government should not act as gate-keepers and stand in the way of parties who wish to enter one if they do so willingly and competently. And placating the minority with an "equal" alternative is not a solution because as Puzycki has already pointed out, separate but equal is anything but. I voted against Amendment 43 and in favor of domestic partnerships, not because I wanted domestic partnerships, but the absurdity of separate but equal contracts would've been plain to see had people been forced to deal with it on a day-to-day basis. Government should just step out of the marriage business altogether and tax individuals, not couples. People are then free to enter the domestic partnership contracts they want. They can call it marriages, civil unions, or what have you, but it will all be referred to as marriages colloquially and perhaps as domestic partnership in official documents. Religious organizations are free to recognize these contracts or not because their recognition is irrelevant because their views are only valid in their organization (though there are evangelists who feel otherwise). Some people may not be happy with that, but at least no one is left with the short end of the stick. Either the government bars no one from marrying who they want or they don't have a say in the matter at all. Either way, Amendment 43 stands in the way, and either must be repealed through legislative means or through a state vote. If left to the people, I hope we don't have to wait three generations to fix it, let alone three centuries.

Comment: I strongly support the idea of removing the concept of marriage from government completely. Although I think it would take a lot of work to take marriage records out of the federal government and state governments hands, I think this is really the best way forward in the debate of same sex marriage. Such a direction could also garner support from Mormons or other religious groups who see it as their right and sometimes as their duty to be able to maintain more than one spouse. Where does anybody get the nerve to try to restrict other free peoples right to engage in these personal relationships. For those who are unaware, the Republican Party has opened up a new web forum for submitting ideas to rebuild the party. I suggested such an idea as described above and it could use as much support as possible to try to get signal to the party that people want this type of sensible solution from government. Separation of Marriage and State
http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/pages/general/suggestions/66509

Comment by Ari: Marriage is a type of contract, and thus government must be involved in it, as it is involved in the arbitration of any sort of contract. However, a marriage is a particular sort of contract involving a romantic relationship between two people; for reasons I've discussed, marriage is not a sort of agreement suited for more than two parties.

'Studies Have Shown'

February 21, 2008

In a February 10 (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_8219277) article for The Denver Post, Katy Human wrote, "Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations and less likely to be absent from school."

The article promoted tax-funded health programs and included not a word from critics, but I was first interested in Human's claim about the studies. Which studies did she have in mind? I asked Human via e-mail, "Is the lack of insurance causing the problems mentioned, or is the lack of insurance itself a symptom of having poorer and less educated parents (on average)?"

Human responded on February 12:

Oh, I know you know the answer to this, Ari. There are many many many studies on this—and all, of course, control for factors such as income and education of parents. There are also studies showing before-and-after for same kids and same families, once the families make a change (adding or dropping insurance.)

But what Human did not do is provide me with a single citation regarding these "many many studies." I suppose that at least some of the studies that she had in mind do contain the sorts of controls that she mentioned. However, I wanted to look for myself, not take Human's word on faith. Moreover, not only did I want to see for myself whether the statistical controls are adequate, but I wanted to learn what is the magnitude of difference. How much difference is there between the insured and uninsured?

I asked Human on February 12 and again on February 13 for her citations. I was hardly being overly demanding in my request; I wrote, "You mentioned that there are many such studies; citations for the two or three that you find most persuasive would suffice." This would have taken only a minute or two of Human's time, as obviously she is already familiar with the studies in question.

I have yet to hear back from her.

I suggest that The Denver Post adopt the following policy. If reporters, for lack of space, mention but do not specify studies or other sources, the reporters should be required to provide the names of those studies or sources to interested readers. Otherwise, readers have no way to verify the reliability of the studies or sources.

February 21 Update: In response to this post, Human send me a list of citations:

Here you go. I won't be doing this for you again—you can do it yourself, and I don't have time to repeat these types of searches for everyone who asks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15121980?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18219242?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18045482?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805222?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

ADULTS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18096863?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I replied, "Thanks! However, you are incorrect that I can correctly guess the studies that you have in mind on my own." After all, I am not a mind reader. Moreover, I do not regard my request as an imposition, given that Human already knew which studies she had in mind. I could have spent hours trying to guess the studies to which Human was referring and still not guessed correctly, while it took Human perhaps a minute or two to send me the links.

If Human does not wish to respond to readers about her citations, then she is free to include them briefly within her articles. In this case, all of the links point to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Including that information would have added seven words to Human's article, including the worlds "by" and "the." Even that brief citation would have pointed readers in the right direction.

I will evaluate the studies within the next couple of days and then discuss the political implications of them. February 22 Update: I've started to work on this, but it will take me some days to write up the results, which I may release with a co-author and perhaps first through another outlet.

Avoid Identity Theft

February 22, 2008

The United States Post Office sent me a pamphlet from the Federal Trade Commission about identity theft. The pamphlet states, "Protect your Social Security number. Don't carry your Social Security card in your wallet or write your Social Security number on a check. Give it out only if absolutely necessary or ask to use another identifier."

Take note, Qwest and Comcast. I very nearly dropped my Qwest phone and internet service last week. Internet service had been spotty, and when I called to complain Qwest's representative demanded that I give him my Social Security number over the phone. When I refused, he suggested that he could also send me to the disconnection department. I hung up.

I had Comcast on the line and was very close to purchasing its services—until its representative demanded my Social Security number over the phone. I told her that was unacceptable.

Fortunately, an employee of Qwest who was sent to work on the problem explained to me what was going wrong with the internet service, how he intended to fix it, and how Qwest does not really need my Social Security number over the phone, in his opinion. Finally, somebody from Qwest lived up to the company's loudly-touted "spirit of service."

(If Comcast would stop spending so much money sending me junk mail and simply offer me a reasonable deal without demanding unnecessary personal information, I'd probably sign up with Comcast. But, aside from the jerk that Qwest subjected me to over the phone, I've been fairly happy with Qwest, except when I'm trying to watch a video online, which is slower.)

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post should be taken to suggest that I do not still advocate the phasing out of Social Security, the privatization of the Post Office, and the abolition of the FTC.

Comment by Paul Tiger: Same for government. Need to know only. The IRS has need to know, and so does your employer, for withholding. And that is it. Some years ago, Paul Danish (Boulder County commissioner ret.) got involved in a class action suit against state run agencies in Boulder that were denying service to people who wouldn't give their SSN. The appeals court decided that an agency could ask, but the person could not be required to provide their SSN. In short, services could not be denied for lack of SSN. In '03 some of the county clerks around the state would not register voters without their SSN. This has also been beaten. The only state agency that is entitled to know your SSN is the Dept. of Revenue.

'We Made Bold Moves'

February 22, 2008

On Wednesday night, my wife and I watched (http://www.intheshadowofthemoon.com/) In the Shadow of the Moon, a documentary about the Apollo missions. The film consists mostly of interviews taken recently with several of the astronauts and video and photos that the astronauts shot on their voyages. I spent the film alternately gasping, cheering, chuckling, and blinking back tears. (Make sure to watch the extra interviews, too.)

Paraphrasing, one of the astronauts says, "It was a time when we made bold moves."

Watching the videos while listening to the men explain what was going on is riveting: I got some sense of how exciting, how fantastic, and how scary these trips were. These men were basically strapping themselves to a missile inside a glorified tin can.

We enjoyed many of the comments by the astronauts, but our favorite interviews were those of Alan Bean. To take just one humorous example, he says something like, "Some of the tabloids claimed that we staged the whole thing in a hanger in Arizona. Maybe that would have been a good idea." His joyful spirit is fun to watch. Bean has devoted his later years to (http://www.alanbeangallery.com/) painting moonscapes. I rather like many of these paintings; (http://www.alanbeangallery.com/HelloUniverse-full.html) "Hello Universe" says it all. Viewers can (http://www.alanbeangallery.com/roomNEW.html) flip through all of the paintings.

Elsewhere I might discuss the politics of space travel, but for this blog I'll look for the religious themes. In my view, the only error of the documentarians was to include near the end gratuitous material about religion and environmentalism. That one of the men found Jesus after his Apollo mission hardly seemed relevant. Yet, obviously these trips were profoundly moving for the astronauts, and I got the sense that they sometimes had a hard time expressing the spiritual dimensions of traveling beyond the earth.

One of the astronauts talked about how, prior to the moon landing, those orbiting the moon on Christmas Eve read passages from Genesis for transmission to earth. One woman sued them for it, which struck me as taking things a bit far.

By coincidence, on Thursday I was reading Joseph Campbell's Though Art That. He had the following to say about the reading (page 4):

The incongruity was that they were several thousand miles beyond the highest heaven conceived of at the time when the Book of Genesis was written, when such science as there was held the concept of a flat earth. There they were, in one moment remarking on how dry the moon was, and in the next, reading of how the waters above and the waters beneath had been walled off.

One of the most marvelous moments of that contemporary experience was described in stately imagery that just did not fit. The moment deserved a more appropriate religious text.

Though Ayn Rand would have had little patience with Campbell's Kantian presumptions regarding "the ineffable nature of the divine" (page 17), Rand did write an (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_apollo11) essay about Apollo 11 that appropriately celebrates the achievement:

The meaning of the sight lay in the fact that when those dark red wings of fire flared open, one knew that one was not looking at a normal occurrence, but at a cataclysm which, if unleashed by nature, would have wiped man out of existence—and one knew also that this cataclysm was planned, unleashed, and controlled by man, that this unimaginable power was ruled by his power and, obediently serving his purpose, was making way for a slender, rising craft. One knew that this spectacle was not the product of inanimate nature, like some aurora borealis, or of chance, or of luck, that it was unmistakably human—with "human," for once, meaning grandeur—that a purpose and a long, sustained, disciplined effort had gone to achieve this series of moments, and that man was succeeding, succeeding, succeeding! For once, if only for seven minutes, the worst among those who saw it had to feel—not "How small is man by the side of the Grand Canyon!"—but "How great is man and how safe is nature when he conquers it!"

That we had seen a demonstration of man at his best, no one could doubt—this was the cause of the event's attraction and of the stunned numbed state in which it left us. And no one could doubt that we had seen an achievement of man in his capacity as a rational being—an achievement of reason, of logic, of mathematics, of total dedication to the absolutism of reality.

Amen.

Milloy on Mercury and Evolution

February 23, 2008

There is all the difference in the world between reasonable skepticism regarding some particular religious or scientific claim and universal skepticism that brings all knowledge into doubt. Steven Milloy seems to have stumbled across that line.

I was impressed with Milloy's (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331689,00.html) recent article about the environmentalist flip-flop on mercury. While environmentalists have typically screamed bloody murder about any trace amount of mercury anywhere, when it came to laws mandating the use of light bulbs that happen to contain mercury, environmentalists were strangely mute. Milloy concludes, "First mercury was dangerous. Then, temporarily, it became no big deal. Now that the Greens have caught us in the CFL [compact fluorescent lightbulb] trap, they're reverting to form on mercury—all to cause the sort of chaos resulting in increased government control of our lives."

However, after I promoted this article via e-mail, Doug Peltz pointed me to a Cato interview in which Milloy expresses doubts about biological evolution as applied to humans. While Cato's web page no longer seems to host the interview, it is available (http://web.archive.org/web/20070324172018/http://www.cato.org/askourscholars/milloy/milloy-020115-2.html) through Archive.org:

[Question:] What's the real deal on evolution? Twenty years ago on "Cosmos," Carl Sagan said it wasn't a "theory" but a "law." My Christian friends tell me it's a theory shot full of errors. And my scientist friends tell me it's provable in the everyday world.

[Reply:] Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way—i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study—for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.

The process of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated in some lower life forms, but this is a far cry from explaining how humans developed.

That said, some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for doubt.

Here Milloy implicitly casts doubt on inductive knowledge as such.

Obviously billions of years of biological evolution cannot be reproduced in a laboratory environment. However, extensive research into fossil records and genetics proves conclusively that all life on earth arose from evolutionary processes.

Moreover, the only alternative to evolution (broadly meaning the development of life through natural processes not guided by some higher intelligence) is some variant of creationism, either natural or supernatural. Natural creationism would involve something like the the process found in 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is no evidence for such creation, making any claim about it completely arbitrary. But those of a religious bent would dismiss natural creationism as quickly as they dismiss evolution, for their entire motive is to create room for supernatural creationism. So, in effect, Milloy sacrifices the very possibility of objective knowledge to religion.

Up from Anarchy

February 23, 2008

Ironically, after spending many years as a libertarian who flirted with "anarcho-capitalism," I was recently criticized in a letter to the Rocky Mountain News by a libertarian anarchist. I'll take that as a sign of my progress. John Chamberlain of Longmont writes for a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/14/governments-are-self-contradictory/) letter dated February 14:

It's a shame when someone gets so close the truth without quite reaching it.

Ari Armstrong (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/poverty-and-responsibility.html) ("Loading the dice against responsibility," Speakout, Jan. 18) scores many good points against Rocky Mountain News columnist Paul Campos, especially in explaining how government activism actually hurts the poor.

But he also writes, "Government can be effective when it sticks to protecting people's rights—that is, preventing crime and protecting people and their property from violence." The problem is that governments, in their current form, depend on taking people's property by violence for their very existence. They are self-contradictory. Their acts of theft (which are euphemized as "taxation") are considered crimes if anyone else does them.

Furthermore, modern governments prevent anyone else from competing against them within the same geographic area.

Governments performs many useful services, but they shouldn't be monopolies. Why would anyone support monopoly? Government should be a voluntary subscription service. Let's take "government by the consent of the governed" seriously!

I am quite familiar with the notion of competing defense agencies, having read the works of Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and others. (I've also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/04/barnett.html) written about Randy Barnett's "polycentric" legal system.)

I essentially agree with Ayn Rand (who, by the way, does not conflate the issues of taxation and geographic monopoly), that competing defense agencies would devolve into violence. Rand (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html) writes:

[S]uppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones' house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith's complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

The typical response is that the two defense agencies will seek arbitration and reach a peaceable solution. But there are two problems with such a reply. First, it manifest a typical libertarian failing of assuming universal rationality in motives. (This is the same failing that leads many libertarians to conclude that Islamic terrorists would become peaceable if only the United States did not antagonize them.) Yet, as world history demonstrates, people do not always reach peaceable solutions that would be in their "rational self-interests;" quite the opposite.

Second, if the competing defense agencies all agree to binding arbitration, then they have formed the very sort of "monopoly" that motivated the criticism in the first place. (I think this is basically along the lines of what Robert Nozick had to say on the matter.) To make such cooperation work, defense agencies would necessarily have to subject themselves to a monopoly power. And if a "competing" agency tried to defy those rules, its members would be arrested and thrown into jail. Sort of like what happens today. As "anarcho-capitalists" are fond of pointing out, today most peace officers are privately hired. Yet they are subject—and quite properly so—to the government's rules. Once "competing" agents of force agree to create and obey a central authority, they are no longer "competing" in the relevant sense. And, once they make this move, they must consider the optimal structure of government—for which no better alternative has been found than a constitutional republic.

Christian Kitsch

February 24, 2008

Thanks to (http://www.heavenlyimages.com/memorialpictures.htm) Heavenly Images, you can send in a photo of your deceased loved one and it will come back showing your loved one with Jesus. You can also do this for photos of the living. (Paul Hsieh alerted me to the link.)

Don't miss the (http://www.heavenlyimages.com/more_samples.htm#Thank_you_) testimonials, including the following:

[Grandma] was so withdrawn, but since receiving her photo of my dad & Jesus she has come out of the house twice... I give all praises to God." ...

I want to thank you so much for doing this. I lost my mother 7 months ago. This picture makes me feel more at ease.

Of course, rather than (http://www.heavenlyimages.com/Order%20form%20pg2.htm) spend a minimum of $30 for this service (and that's for a pet; it's unclear to me why humans cost more), you could find a friend with some simple design software to do it for free. But, hey, it's only $3 extra (http://www.heavenlyimages.com/Order%20form%20pg1.htm) to include a poem or verse.

The main Heavenly Images (http://www.heavenlyimages.com/) page also explains why you should believe in Jesus and heaven. The upshot is that the New Testament is proven to be fact by eye witnesses, and if you don't believe in Jesus you won't go to Heaven (and, presumably, will instead go to Hell).

While you're at it, don't miss the advertised links: you can get (http://www.besttones4u.net/ringtone/47/Bible-Verses/index.html?sub1=0010023223644) Bible Verses Ringtones, (http://www.faithclipart.com/) Faith Clip Art, and even a hot (http://www.loveandseek.com/) Christian date.

It's all enough to make Jesus himself swear ("me, mom, an mom's husband!")

How It's Made

February 24, 2008

Last time I had access to cable TV, I watched several episodes of the show (http://science.discovery.com/fansites/howitsmade/howitsmade.html) "How It's Made." It's a spectacular show that reveals how various products are mass produced.

What has mass production done for us? In short, a lot fewer people can make a lot more life-advancing stuff. That allows more people to enjoy the products. Practically all of the clothes we wear, most of the food we eat, and just about every product in our homes was mass produced (or significantly assisted by mass production) using advanced technical processes.

Many of today's labor-intensive jobs are made possible by mass production, which frees up labor for other jobs. When the country first started, most people worked in agriculture. Now a tiny minority do. Today, businesses exist to wash your dog or provide it with therapy. "In 2003, more than 15 million people practiced Yoga, according to Yoga Journal magazine," writes (http://www.helium.com/tm/703279/million-people-practiced-according) one practitioner. Several massage clinics have recently opened up near my house, and chiropractors are everywhere. These are just a few examples.

Yet who pauses to recognize the profound improvements to their lives made possible by science, technology, and a market free enough to develop the wonders of mass production?

Huckabee Compares Abortion to Slavery

February 25, 2008

Mike Huckabee recently visited Colorado to meet James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Huckabee also spoke at an event hosted by the Leadership Program of the Rockies. The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8346532) reported the news and reviewed some of Huckabee's comments:

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, said liberty requires "moral clarity" and that equality demands a human-life amendment to the Constitution. He said that even if the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973, it wouldn't go far enough.

"What that means is that every one of the 50 states can come up with its own definition of life," said Huckabee, equating abortion with slavery. "That's the logic of the Civil War. That's the idea that morality is geographical. It's the notion that something can be right in one state and wrong in another. Well, when it came to slavery, we finally got it right that you can't own another human being."

So Huckabee was serious when (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/amend-constitution-so-its-in-gods.html) he said he wants to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards."

I do agree with Huckabee about the illegitimacy of moral relativism. Yet Huckabee seeks to replace moral relativism with universally enforced religious dogma, which is even worse. There is simply no basis in reality for equating a fertilized egg with a person, as Huckabee is trying to do. Therefore, Huckabee's suggestion that abortion is morally equal to slavery is absurd. Outlawing abortion in any state would be morally wrong.

Waitress, Stardust Best Movies of '07

February 25, 2008

I spent Oscar night watching good movies on video. I didn't even know the Oscars were on television until I happened to check the news online and notice that some winners had already been announced.

Out of the 24 (http://oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/index) Oscar winners, I've seen only four of the movies. Of those, I didn't particularly like Golden Compass, and Bourne won only for technical achievements. I quite liked Ratatouille (even though I've never understood why "animated feature" gets its own category, given that there are so few decent animated movies in a given year), and Elizabeth: The Golden Age was okay. The only other winner that I have a particular interest in seeing is Juno. I do want to see No Country for Old Men, and I might watch Once, though I've already marked There Will Be Blood off of my "maybe" list. I don't care how good the acting is if the movie is fundamentally grotesque.

So what did I do while happily ignoring the Oscars? My wife and I watched Feast of Love, which we enjoyed despite some serious problems with the writing (such as the use of a psychic as a plot device), and then we discovered a very fine film: (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0825225/) American Pastime.

I'd never heard of this latter film till we saw a preview on another rental. Both my wife and I loved this movie. Okay, part of the plot is somewhat contrived; the interracial romance, the father who just doesn't understand his daughter, the competition among brothers, and the miracle sports comeback all felt a bit obvious. But I'd rather watch an old-fashioned, heartfelt story than a play of some miserable moral monster. Oscar can stuff it, as far as I'm concerned (though I've rarely been much of a fan, as my notes from (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/03/savingface.html) 2006 and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/03/movies.html) 2004 suggest.) At least Michael Moore didn't win, which surprised me.

American Pastime is about a baseball team formed in a Japanese-American internment camp. But it's about much more than that. It's mostly about a young man's struggle to deal with racism and injustice. The main character loves jazz and baseball, but his pending college education (on a baseball scholarship) is interrupted by the war and his forced relocation to the camp. Understandably, he feels bitter about this. He and his brother clash—until his brother joins the Army to fight in Germany. And the young man finds a romantic interest in a girl who just happens to be the piano-playing daughter of the camp's main guard, who just happens to be the star player on the local baseball team. As I mentioned, this sounds like a story-telling setup, but the characters are well developed and believable. The main actors are quite good.

Looking back at 2007, two movies stand out for me. Neither received a single Oscar (http://oscar.com/nominees/) nomination.

(http://waitressmovie.net/) Waitress is a spectacular movie. The Oscar group committed something approaching a moral sin by failing to recognize Adrienne Shelly for screenplay, Keri Russell for best actress, and Andy Griffith for best supporting actor. Waitress is among the great films of the decade, not just of 2007.

Russell plays a waitress (big surprise) who is also a spectacular baker of pies, which reflect her moods. She works at a pie shop owned by Griffith's character, and Griffith is absolutely superb as the grumpy but perceptive proprietor. He nimbly tightropes between a cynical demeanor and a compassionate heart. The problem is that the waitress is married to a complete jerk—and she is pregnant. This is a love story, but not between the characters of Russell and romantic interest Nathan Fillion, but between the woman and her child. It is a beautiful, gorgeously written story.

(http://www.stardustmovie.com/) Stardust is my other favorite film of the year. I've already briefly (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/claire-danes-shines.html) summarized it:

A young man, trying to win the heart of the local beauty, sees a falling star and pledges to fetch it in exchange for the girl's hand. But to retrieve the star, our hero must cross the wall that separates England from the magical world beyond. In that world, a fallen star is not a hunk of metal and ash—it is a lovely young lady, in this case portrayed by Claire Danes. Our hero must learn to become a man, save the star, and figure out whom he loves.

This coming-of-age story is a fantasy for grownups. Forget about how silly it sounds to make a star into a girl: it works. And Robert De Niro as the tough-talking (but eccentric dressing) pirate is both hilarious and touching.

Both Waitress and Stardust are such fabulous movies that, of course, neither won even a single nomination from Oscar. (In neither film is a despicable son of a bitch the main character.) But who cares what Oscar thinks: both films earn an Ari.

Peikoff's Ninth Podcast

February 26, 2008

(http://www.peikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff has released his (http://www.peikoff.com/MP3FILES/Podcast9.mp3) ninth podcast. I've been going back and forth about where to blog about these podcasts; this time I'll put my notes on AriArmstrong.com rather than FreeColorado.com because one question involves religion. The notes that follow are my own summaries that should not be taken as a substitute for Peikoff's comments. In this podcast, Peikoff addresses four questions.

1. A 17-year-old atheist asks about how to relate to his religious parents. Should he pretend to pray and worship at church? Would discussing the matter with his parents somehow diminish the value of the teenager's views? Peikoff describes a very sensible course: "be pleasant, do not be argumentative, but don't lie." He points out that it's generally not possible for a child—even an older one—to convince parents about things of this sort, so it might be necessary for a teenager living at home to "follow what [parents] require, but within limits." Peikoff also explains why expressing one's views does not somehow taint them but rather gives them the force of an "objective presence."

While I agree with Peikoff's advice for normal situations, I would add that, in the case of particularly irrational parents who might subject their "disloyal" children to spankings, indoctrination camps, or the like, teenagers should keep their views quiet until they get out of the house. But such situations are abnormal and rare (in the West).

2. How does Peikoff stay youthful? Peikoff says the key is "ambition, passion for work," but that exercise, diet, and genetics also play a role.

3. Do (older) teenagers (and presumably those a bit older) have to have sex in order to discover their romantic values? Peikoff replies that, while one should select romantic partners who are virtuous, one cannot deduce before hand what one will find romantically attractive. But this does not imply that casual sex is the way to go.

4. What is the relationship between integrating new knowledge and disintegrating wrong ideas? Peikoff answers that the two steps generally go hand in hand; if one holds incorrect views, then one must break up the incorrect views as one discovers and integrates correct ones.

The Negawatt

February 26, 2008

The "negawatt" is a symptom of the insanity of the environmentalist movement. Indisputable is the fact that energy production has enhanced and prolonged our lives in countless ways. Modern transportation allows us to move ourselves and goods around our towns, nation, and world. Electricity powers our household appliances, factories, offices, lights, computers, medical equipment, and on and on. But the environmentalist movement wishes to subvert human well-being to "unblemished" nature. While many environmentalists reluctantly acquiesce to the use of "alternative" forms of energy, which today almost always costs more, environmentalists most forcefully push for energy reduction. As two environmentalists (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8224916) recently explained for The Denver Post:

Investing in energy efficiency is a better deal for consumers and the environment. As Gov. Bill Ritter has stated, "The cheapest watt of electricity is the watt that isn't consumed at all. It's called the negawatt."

In other words, we are supposed to spend our time and resources, not expanding our production of energy, but contracting it. Rather than produce, we are supposed to reduce. Rather than seek out ways to provide more watts of energy, we are to actively use less. We are to measure our success not by the megawatt by by the "negawatt."

Obviously, people in a free market continually strive to produce more and better products for lower costs, which means finding more efficient means of production. If a factory's owners can produce the same amount of goods in the same amount of time by spending less on energy, then, other things being equal, those owners will freely and happily make the change. If consumers can purchase a lightbulb that works at least as well but costs less to operate without causing other problems, producers will be able to persuade consumers to act in their own interests. Politicians need not hold a gun to people's heads or otherwise threaten force to get people to do things that are efficient in the full sense of the term, which accounts for preferences and time as well as energy use. Economic efficiency often entails energy efficiency, which properly means that an expanding pool of energy becomes available for other uses.

Yet the environmentalists exuberantly call for the threat and use of physical force to change people's behaviors. They call for "renewable" energy mandates (but for bans on nuclear power), mandates for bulbs that some people don't like and fear are toxic, forced wealth transfers for corn gas, and so on. Environmentalists measure "efficiency" in terms of restricting human use of natural resources, and they generally ignore the most important natural resources: human life and time.

As a release from the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16849) points out, environmentalists are becoming more brazen in their demands to impose economic controls:

Many people are calling for drastic political action to cope with climate change. But the authors of a new book, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, go much further, claiming that global warming can be effectively dealt with only by "an authoritarian form of government."

Environmentalists argue that humans are the primary cause of global warming and, absent a wide-scale political take-over of the economy, global warming will advance until it causes catastrophic problems. Yet the degree of human involvement in warming and the magnitude of future problems are matters of politically-motivated guess work. To reach their alarmist conclusions, environmentalists pretend to predict not only the weather but the stock market—for a century into the future.

Even assuming the environmentalist case about carbon dioxide and the future consequences of global warming, the further assumption—that this problem requires expansive political force in the economy—is hardly warranted. Indeed, it is only an unfettered free market that could ably handle the potential problems of warming while ensuring the maximum advancement of human life.

Consider just two recent news reports. Futurist Ray Kurzweil (http://www.livescience.com/environment/080219-kurzweil-solar.html) believes that "the technology needed for collecting and storing [sunlight] is about to emerge as the field of solar energy is going to advance exponentially" over the coming decades. If this is true, then the best thing the government could to is to return to its proper function of protecting property rights and freedom of production. Maybe solar energy won't turn out to be the best way to go. Maybe it will be some sort of nuclear power, or even something not yet invented. But threatening to send in the storm troopers to non-authorized production plants and throw people in jail for declining to subsidize the projects favored by special-interest groups is hardly the way to go, though it is the way favored by the typical environmentalist.

Other scientists (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html) think that they can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If global warming actually worsened over the coming decades and actually started to cause the sorts of wide-scale catastrophes that environmentalists scream about, then many people would be quite willing to spend a bit extra on fuel or even voluntarily contribute to carbon-dioxide removal factories.

But the simple fact is that today's politicians do not know what the future climate holds or what the best response to any change would be. Nor are their political aspirations typically in consonance with such lofty concerns. What is certain is that subjecting people to political force wastes resources (in the full, economic sense of the term) and prevents people from applying the full force of their minds to the problem of improving methods of production and adapting to changing circumstances of all varieties.

A Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person

February 27, 2008

Recently (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/huckabee-compares-abortion-to-slavery.html) I discussed Mike Huckabee's opposition to abortion. He really means it. A February 26 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/26/huckabee-endorses-colo-measure-giving-rights-ferti/) article from the Rocky Mountain News states:

A proposed ballot measure that would define personhood as a fertilized egg picked up the endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister.

In a statement Monday, Huckabee said the amendment proposed by 20-year-old Kristi Burton and her group, Colorado for Equal Rights, would send a clear message that every human life has value.

(http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/files/initiativetext.pdf) Here is the text of the proposal:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.

And (http://www.colorado.gov/colorado-how-do-i/government-constitution.html) here is what those three sections state:

Section 3. Inalienable rights.

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 6. Equality of justice.

Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Section 25. Due process of law.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Here I will briefly recapitulate the case against the proposal.

A fertilized egg is not a person. It is (in the right circumstances) a potential person, but a potential is not an actual person. A fertilized egg is human in the sense that it contains human DNA, but that is the case with every cell in our bodies. The distinction between a potential and actual person applies throughout gestation, but it is particularly obvious in the case of a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg soon becomes a clump of undifferentiated cells; certainly it cannot function or live independently.

A fertilized egg is not a person and therefore does not have rights. A woman has an absolute right to abort a fertilized egg and older embryo. (This is true even if the pregnancy resulted from irresponsible behavior.)

What would be some of the implications of treating a fertilized egg as a person?

The measure, if enforced (which is another matter), would outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, severe damage to the embryo, and danger to the woman's life. The measure would probably outlaw the use of all "morning after" medications. That means that women, and/or their doctors, and/or the producers and suppliers of items used for abortion, would be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment.

It so happens that a large percentage of pregnancies are naturally terminated by women's bodies. It is also the case that sometimes a fertilized egg begins to grow outside of the uterus; this is called an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy) ectopic pregnancy.

Treating a fertilized egg as a person, then, would require a criminal investigation into any terminated pregnancy in which the women was suspected of inducing her body's rejection of the egg, embryo, or fetus. Serious enforcement of the measure would require the machinations of a police state. Treating a fertilized egg as a person would also require the woman to risk and often surrender her life in the case of dangerous pregnancies, including ectopic ones.

The measure is hideously immoral and ghastly in its implications.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Excellent analysis. I have often wondered if we would end up with the miscarriage police. There are other implications of this as well. A pregnant woman may be required to surrender her right to self-determination in matters related to her pregnancy and childbirth as a matter of course. This already happens, especially to poor women, in high profile cases. For example, a few years back a pregnant woman in the upper midwest was jailed for the rest of her pregnancy when it was discovered that she was smoking pot. Official said it was 'to protect her fetus.' In other cases, courts have forced laboring women to undergo medical procedures against their own will in order to 'protect the baby.' It is all very frightening indeed.

John Lewis on Greek Law

February 27, 2008

Last year I wrote about historian John Lewis's trip to Colorado (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/02/lewis.html) here and (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/020107.html) here. Now Lewis's new book, Early Greek Lawgivers, is available. Following is part of a (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-02-35.html) brief review:

This short book is in the publisher's Classical World Series, which is designed for "students and teachers of Classical Civilisation at late school and early university level." Lewis discusses the work of the often-shadowy figures that were the early lawgivers set against the background of the societies in which they lived and worked and the development of the legal code. It is an excellent introduction to the topic, which can be comfortably set as additional background reading in undergraduate courses on Greek civilization and law and society. ...

There is a lot in this short book, which is succinctly written, stimulating, and introduces to students earlier lawgivers as well as the better known figures of Draco, Solon, and Lycurgus, who all too often are the only ones studied in courses.

What's more, Lewis's Solon the Thinker is now available in paperback: "This first paperback edition contains a new appendix of translations of the fragments of Solon by the author."

The books are enormously helpful in understanding the development of law in Greek society and the origins of law as such.

No Yoga for Christians?

February 28, 2008

I just completed a month's membership at a local yoga studio, and I was trying to find some information on the growth of yoga (as well as massage) over the last few decades. I didn't find the figures I was looking for (so if anybody has a good source, please let me know), but I did find the following (http://echristian.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/can-a-pagan-practice-be-christianized-yoga/) peculiar commentary on the "eChristian" blog: "Can a Pagan Practice be 'Christianized?'—Yoga."

First a word about my own limited experience with yoga. There was a class about "chakras" that I simply refused to attend. And I've had enough "hare krishna" chanting to last a lifetime. (Thankfully, I think that CD got scratched. I promise I had nothing to do with that.) But, in general, yoga is just a form of exercise that emphasizes stretching. As my neck and shoulders often get tense as I type, for me that works great. I just ignore the occasional mumbo-jumbo. When my wife and I do yoga alone at home, we stick to the moves that work for us and don't worry about our fifth chakras. As with martial arts, yoga comes from a specific region and contains some superfluous elements that can be safely ignored.

But yoga is a no-no for Christians, at least according to Marsha West, who originally wrote the (http://www.newswithviews.com/West/marsha61.htm) piece on January 25, 2008, for NewsWithViews.com. At the top of that page, we discover that West is "Battling The Culture of Destruction." The upshot is that "Christians should avoid yoga and seek other alternatives." Following are her essential points:

...The Bible says, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds but rather expose them." Exposing evil keeps Christians from being "polluted by the world." And yes, yoga is evil. ...

Now here's the main reason Christians should avoid yoga. Christian apologists John Ankerberg and John Weldon maintain that, "The basic premise of yoga theory is the fundamental unity of all existence: God, man, and all of creation are ultimately one divine reality." ...

Pope Benedict XVI is not at all happy about the large number of Christians practicing yoga. Recently he gave this warning: "Yoga can degenerate into the cult of the body."

S. Michael Houdmann thinks yoga is blatantly anti-Christian philosophy. "It teaches one to focus on oneself instead of on the one true God. It encourages its participants to seek the answers to life's difficult questions within their own conscience instead of in the Word of God. It also leaves one open to deception from God's enemy, who searches for victims that he can turn away from God (1 Peter 5:8)."

West goes on to criticize "CY," or Christian Yoga:

[O]ccult and cult expert, Caryl Matrisciana... warns that yoga postures, "are designed to form one's body into the likeness of man, animals, birds, insects, snakes, fish, and many more--all of which are revered as gods in Hinduism."

West seems to have forgotten all about the fact that the "Christian" holidays of Christmas and Easter are based on older pagan customs. So, even from the Christian perspective, West's comments are pretty crazy. Then again, the Christians did go through a period of destroying Roman pagan art, as some Protestants later destroyed Catholic art. So West's type of insanity is not entirely new to Christianity. Moreover, at least historically many Christians were quite serious about denying the flesh and such, and it's true that yoga promotes physical health. For some Christians, the "cult of the body" refers to anything whatsoever that feels remotely good or that emphasizes sensory perception.

Of course, I want to make a somewhat broader criticism: West is telling people to reject one sort of mythology as "evil"—and to accept as literal truth another sort of mythology.

Most mythologies, including Christianity, have at least something positive to offer to rational people. If the Hindus gave us yoga, great—that doesn't mean I have to accept the mystical baggage, any more than I have to accept the mystical baggage of Christmas to enjoy that holiday.

Comment by Neil Parille: I don't see what is so crazy about West's view from her Christian perspective. As you point out, there is a certain religious aspect to Yoga that a non-religious person might want to avoid. So it makes perfect sense that a Christian wouldn't want to take part in that as well. I don't think the woman is against exercise or relaxation. There are Christians who don't celebrate Christmas or Easter because of their connections with paganism. Maybe West is one of them.

Comment by Burgess Laughlin: I concur with your evaluation of yoga (in some forms) and the need to disassemble the package deal offered. I studied Hatha yoga (Iyengar style) for three years. I had the good fortune to share an office space with a yoga teacher who turned her teaching into a successful business. The physical part is excellent training for strength and proper posture. (One of the 20 most valuable books in my 63 years of living is Pete Egoscue, Pain Free, based largely on yoga positions for physical therapy.) Also a benefit is learning to control breathing consciously. That skill--reinforced in martial arts--has helped me physically and mentally many times. Yoga, which I was told means "union" in Sanskrit, represents the union of mind and body, according to my teacher. Objectively interpreted, that is a good thing. Many people I have observed do fragment their awareness of themselves physically and mentally. Being reminded to "live in the here and now" is a good reminder--as long as it is not dichotomized against long-range planning. The mystical elements are easy to dump, for example, "the feeling of being one with the universe." So, I would recommend serious study of Hatha yoga (at least in the much-Westernized Iyengar style or something similar) for those who can benefit from what it offers.

Squash Competition to Save It?

February 28, 2008

I had to laugh at this (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/28/chain-stores-would-ruin-colorados-competitive-liqu/) headline for a Rocky Mountain News Speakout by William J. Barr: "Chain stores would ruin Colorado's competitive liquor business."

The thrust the piece is that Colorado's legislature must maintain the ban on chain liquor stores in order to preserve competition. In other words, in Barr's view, "competition" means threatening to send in armed officers to prevent people from opening stores. "Competition" means forcibly preventing people from associating voluntarily in the economic sphere. In short, according to Barr, "competition" means outlawing select "capitalist acts among consenting adults," to again invoke Nozick.

Barr's position is utterly ridiculous. Using political force to shut down one's competitors is the antithesis of free-market competition. But apparently Barr favors the sort of competition by which special interest groups grovel for protectionist legislation from morally corrupt politicians.

Real competition means that people have the protected right to offer their goods and services freely to willing customers. Nobody is forcing a single consumer to do business with a store that happens to be part of a chain. On a free market, any store that does not meet the needs of consumers will fail. If a chain succeeds on a free market, it is because quality management, economies of scale, and/or earned reputation draws in customers. So what Barr is really arguing is that customers must be forcibly prevented from doing business with stores that best meet their needs.

Saudi Insanity

February 29, 2008

A (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333573,00.html) story reproduced by Fox—originally (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3439642.ece) from The Times of February 26—reports:

A university professor allegedly caught in a Saudi-style honey trap has been sentenced to 180 lashes and eight months in jail—for having coffee with a girl. ...

[O]ne senior Saudi journalist told The Times he was Dr. Abu Ruzaiz, a married man in his late 50s with children.

"He is highly respected and above-board. Nobody believes the religious police's version of what happened. The whole of Jeddah (the main city near Mecca) is in uproar about this. Everyone believes he is innocent and was set up," the journalist said.

Contact between unrelated men and women is strictly prohibited in the desert kingdom where religious police, commonly known as mutaween, patrol public places in teams to enforce their brand of ultra-conservative Islam. ... They are under the command of the Saudi Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. ...

Ruzaiz is said to have received a call from a girl purporting to be one of his students who asked to meet to discuss a problem that she did not want to talk about over the phone. The professor agreed to meet at a family cafe, provided she brought her brother along as a chaperone.

When he arrived, he was surprised to find the girl alone, and was promptly surrounded by religious policemen who handcuffed him and hauled him into custody. He was accused of being in a state of khulwa—seclusion—with an unrelated woman. ...

In another high-profile case, an illiterate Saudi woman is hoping that King Abdullah will spare her life after she was condemned to death for "witchcraft." Her accusers included a man who claimed that the woman, Fawzi Falih, had made him impotent with her sorcery.

An international human rights group said Falih—who faces being publicly beheaded—was allegedly beaten by religious police and forced into fingerprinting a false confession.

Prosecutors are currently investigating 57 young men arrested last week for flirting with girls at shopping centres in Mecca. They were accused of wearing indecent clothes, playing loud music and dancing in order to catch the attention of girls.

The Times published (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3378460.ece) an earlier account of the "witch."

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece) Here is yet another story:

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's "Mutaween" police.

And (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3399484.ece) here is a follow-up:

A US businesswoman living in Saudi Arabia fears for her life after the religious police issued a rare statement defending her arrest this month for having coffee with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

According to that Times story, the absurdly named Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice made the following statement:

It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married.

All of these are against the law and it's clear it's against the law. First, for a woman to work with men is against the law and against religion. Second, the family sections at coffee shops and restaurants are meant for families and close relatives.

Yes, some people in Saudi Arabia are upset about these sorts of abuses. But the mere fact that this sort of religious-based fascism exists indicates widespread cultural insanity in that country.

Americans who want "faith-based" politics should look seriously at what that actually means when seriously enforced. No, no American (that I've heard) has complained when a man and woman "laugh and drink coffee together." No, various American Christians merely (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/fertilized-egg-is-not-person.html) advocate the complete ban of all abortions from the moment of fertilization, (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/religious-insanity.html) say that "in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death," and (http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html) call for "the death penalty for homosexuals" and for "Biblical theocratic republics." But at least in America the religious crazies don't get to go around brutalizing people with state sanction and resources.

Sunshine Payola

February 29, 2008

Now that Peter Blake has taken his retirement package from the Rocky Mountain News, he seems to writing for the paper for free. But, whether or not he's not being paid for his work, his articles remain invaluable. His February 28 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/28/blake-thats-why-they-call-it-green/) article describes the case of a Rick Gilliam, who pushed for mandates for solar power before cashing in on... solar power. Here is the story as Blake tells it:

Amendment 37, an initiative approved by voters in 2004, was designed by renewable-energy advocates. It specified that 10 percent of the power generated by the state's largest utilities had to come from renewable sources by 2015. Most will come from wind, which, though unreliable as a baseload source, is relatively cheap. But solar, although far more expensive, has its advocates, and they must be appeased. The initiative specified that 4 percent of the 10 percent [meaning 4 percent of total energy] be generated by the sun.

The voters chose in 2004, but three years later the legislature was so confident that renewables were popular it decided to kick up their share to 20 percent, by 2020, without a referendum.

Rick Gilliam of Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit environmental group, was the principal author of Amendment 37 and its registered representative. In 2005 and 2006, after Amendment 37 passed, he won major environmental awards.

But in January 2007 he... join[ed] SunEdison of Baltimore as director of Western states policy. SunEdison had just landed a contract from Xcel to build the largest "solar electric farm" in Colorado, near Alamosa. Designed to produce 8.22 megawatts capable of powering 2,600 homes along the Front Range, it cost $60 million. It went online late last year.

In other words, Gilliam is responsible for the forced transfer of wealth to solar-electric producers—including himself. Neat trick! But this is hardly new: who do you think pushed for the corn-gas laws? Or the mercury-bulb laws? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking) Rent seeking is the second-oldest profession in human history, if not nearly as honorable.

Fake Scandal de Jour

February 29, 2008

Talk about ridiculous. The Denver Post's crack reporter Tim Hoover (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8397492) reports:

Sen. Shawn Mitchell said he was just poking fun at Democrats, not race, when he directed a comment today at Senate President Peter Groff and Sen. Ken Gordon that some lawmakers found insensitive.

Mitchell, a Broomfield Republican who is white, was speaking on a medical malpractice law bill sponsored by Groff, a Denver Democrat and the Senate's first black president.

Groff and Majority Leader Ken Gordon, who is white, were standing near the podium as Mitchell argued in opposition to the bill. At one point, Mitchell mistakenly addressed Gordon as Groff, prompting him to correct himself and say to Groff, "Excuse me, Mr. President. You all look alike to me." ... Groff said that Mitchell had come and apologized to him. "I didn't take offense when I heard it (the remark)," said Groff...

Hoover mentions ColoradoPols.com, which had (http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=B0C0C97A8277FCA6BFB90199A2A257D5?diaryId=5505) this to say about the incident:

Mitchell Statement to Groff Draws Questions

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM MST

We're hearing about an exchange in the Colorado Senate this morning that culminated in supposedly racially charged words from Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell to Senate President Peter Groff, as in, "you all look the same to me."

Numerous people have confirmed that this exchange took place, but as the first comment below indicates, this could have been said/heard in a different context than it was intended.

Here's the audio clip of the remark--we think Mitchell was genuinely trying to make a joke, though perhaps one in poor taste. He appears to have confused Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon (happens to be white) with Senate President Peter Groff (happens to be black), and the "joke" was made while correcting himself. Some people who were there seem to think that it was not so innocent, but we'll let you decide for yourself.

And here is Mitchell's reply:

What Really Happened

Hey Pols, Shawn Mitchell here. You're being misled by someone with an agenda. Here's what happened. During a debate on medical malpractice insurance, I mistakenly attributed a comment by Peter Groff instead to Ken Gordon. Each of them started in instantly with the jokes, along the lines of "I'm taller" or "I'm better looking." Since one is tall, young, and black, and the other is short, middle-aged plus, and white, I made a quick jab at absurd humor and said, "Well they all look alike to me," referring to Democratic leadership. In case your informant is unaware, Groff is Senate President and Gordon is Majority Leader. So, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you can chill the scandal siren.

Here are pictures of Senators Groff and Gordon, taken from their official web pages: [omitted; Groff if black; Gordon is white].

Quite obviously, Mitchell's comment was not remotely racist. I do not think that his comment had any racial element whatsoever.

But let's say, hypothetically, that Mitchell's comment had some distant connection to the racist comment that people of Heritage X "all look alike." Then the force of Mitchell's comment would be to make fun of that racist comment. It's not racist to make fun of racists.

Have any of Mitchell's critics seen Sarah Silverman's film, (http://www.jesusismagicthemovie.com/) "Jesus is Magic?" This film is filled—absolutely filled—with overtly racist comments. Except that Silverman is obviously making fun of those comments by exaggerating them to the point of absurdity. How many left-wingers have condemned Silverman for this movie? Come on—how many? The answer, to my knowledge, is zero. Instead, this film vaulted Silverman's career. Variety calls it "Explosively funny, unnervingly shocking and perversely adorable!"

I submit that anyone who blasts Mitchell for his comment, but who does not condemn Silverman a thousand fold, is a hypocrite (and an idiot to boot).

Catholics "To End Abortion"

March 2, 2008

(http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/fertilized-egg-is-not-person.html) Recently I described and criticized the effort in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person. While the Catholic Church has not officially endorsed the measure, Catholics also wish "to end abortion," according to one spokesperson.

Electa Draper (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8397157) writes for the February 28 Denver Post:

"We commend the goal of this effort to end abortion. Individual Catholics may choose to work for its passage," [Colorado Catholic Conference Executive Director Jennifer] Kraska said.

"At the same time, we recognize that other people committed to the sanctity of life have raised serious questions about this specific amendment's timing and content," she said.

Kraska does not reveal—and Draper does not report—what problems some Catholics find with the measure's "timing and content." But Kraska could not be more clear in her position on abortion—a position that, far from preserving "the sanctity of life," would destroy the sanctity of life of some people.

Nor are other Catholics as hesitant, as Draper continues:

"It's a political, gutless position," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League.

"As a Catholic, it's the most scandalous thing I've ever heard," Brown said. "I can't believe that any bishop wouldn't want to be out in the front lines helping the petitioners. The sanctity of life is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church."

This issue is not limited to Colorado. Draper concludes:

The Colorado effort is part of a national movement to win Supreme Court review of Roe v. Wade, Brown said. Montana and Mississippi also have ballot initiatives in progress for 2008; Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon were working toward a 2009 measure.

Nobody can say the advocates of faith-based politics didn't warn us.

Comment by Burgess Laughlin: Anyone interested in the "social mechanics" of the debate over abortion in the USA, might profit from a close reading of Ch. 14, "Bioethics and Public Policy: Catholic Participation in the American Debate," in Robert P. George, The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis, 2001. George, an articulate intellectual in academic and Catholic circles, surveys the history of the participation of the Catholic Church in the abortion and related debates in the US, mainly during the last 20 years or so. George sees mostly failure in Catholics' efforts to convey their message, as well as to actually ban abortion. In part, the value of the chapter is that it shows: 1. "The enemy has problems too." Their problems consist of: - Wavering (due to confusion, among many Catholic leaders influenced by post-modernism, over fundamental principles). - Lack of organizational discipline (allowing prominent Catholics, such as Sen. Kennedy, to contradict Catholic teachings without being expelled from the Church), thus leading to confusion among Catholic followers. - Conflation of official discussions of guiding principles, which should be absolutely set by the Church, with discussions of the minutiae of particular proposed laws, about which "reasonable Catholics" might disagree. 2. The fight, in Dr. Peikoff's terms, between M1s and M2s, on one side, and D1s on the other side, is happening within massive institutions such as the Catholic Church in the US, as well as in the larger society. 3. George is fully aware that the fight to control this society is an intellectual fight: "... to a very large extent, it is on Catholic campuses that the future of the Church in America, and of a Catholic bioethic, will be decided. Let us be under no illusions: much of this ground is currently under enemy occupation." (p. 301) George is a perfect conservative intellectual. Conservatism is the ideology whose four highest values are: God, Tradition, Nation, and Family. Those are his guiding values. He is serious and articulate, especially in his M1 epistemology: faith sets our highest values and we should use "reason" to implement them in society. He is therefore a potential "mover" in society.

Republicans Against Free Markets

March 2, 2008

Those who insist upon being pissed off at State Senator Shawn Mitchell, even when they have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/fake-scandal-de-jour.html) no good reason to be, may be pleased that I have discovered a real reason to be annoyed with him.

Roger Fillion (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/26/colo-senate-oks-sunday-booze-bill/) reported for the February 26 Rocky Mountain News:

The Colorado Senate gave the final thumbs up Monday to a bill that would allow liquor stores to open Sundays, a big step toward scrapping the decades-old ban on Sunday booze sales.

The measure now goes to the House, where it's expected to face tougher resistance. The bill, SB 82, cleared the Senate in a 23-8 vote.

I decided to look up the "no" votes.

Following is a list of the (http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/DirectorySen?openframeset) senators who voted against the measure, along with their party affiliation:

Bill Cadman, Republican
Jim Isgar, Democrat
Andrew McElhany, Republican
Shawn Mitchell, Republican
Scott Renfroe, Republican
David Schultheis, Republican
Jack Taylor, Republican
Tom Wiens, Republican

Are you noticing any trends here?

It's not like this is an ambiguous issue. Business owners and their customers have a moral right to do business on mutually beneficial terms, on any day that they like. The (partial) ban on Sunday liquor sales violates free markets and freedom of association (and also the separation of church and state, given that the Blue Laws are rooted in religious restrictions).

So the next time that a Republican lies to you and tell you that Republicans are for free markets, remind the Republican that it took a Democratic legislature to move seriously to repeal to the Sunday booze ban, and seven of the eight senate votes to maintain the ban were cast by Republicans.

Remember that the Republican Party is the Other Party of Big Government.

Will the 'Wall' Fall?

March 3, 2008

Troy A. Eid claims that we shouldn't take the separation of church and state so seriously because, after all, George Washington didn't. Eid writes for the February 15 Rocky Mountain News:

A bold new book, co-authored by a prominent Colorado attorney, takes direct aim at this conventional wisdom. In Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State, Denver's own Joe Smith and Tara Ross, a Texas-based lawyer and writer, counter Jefferson's wall-of-separation approach with that of the best-known Founder of them all, George Washington. ...

According to Washington, there is no wall. Instead, government should broadly encourage religious expression in order to strengthen public virtue—what might be called "values" today. The First Amendment, read in the way its drafters intended, means that the state must not discriminate for or against any particular sect or set of religious beliefs.

Smith and Ross carefully document their claim that Washington, not Jefferson, was in a far better position to interpret constitutional history based on real-life experience.

Ironically, Jefferson was minister to France from 1785 to 1789 and did not participate in the Constitutional Convention, or in the congressional debates that produced the Bill of Rights. Washington, in contrast, presided over that convention and was intimately involved in the process from beginning to end.

Notably, "Troy A. Eid is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the U.S. Department of Justice."

(http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/co/eid_bio_new.pdf) Eid was "Nominated by [three guesses] President Bush..."

On March 3, Robert R. Tiernan of the (http://ffrf.org/) Freedom From Religion Foundation, Colorado Chapter, (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/03/eid-revises-history-to-back-his-view/) replied:

The First Amendment was not the subject of the Constitutional Convention over which George Washington presided. Rather, the Amendment was later debated in Congress after the Constitution was ratified and Washington had become president. With Jefferson's help and advice, then-Rep. James Madison, a strict church/state separatist, marshaled the measure through the Congress and it was later ratified by the states as part of the Bill of Rights.

Beyond the historical debate, the First Amendment states clearly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Eid, on the other hand, claims that the "First Amendment... means that the state must not discriminate for or against any particular sect or set of religious beliefs." Eid has skipped right over the "establishment" clause to the "free exercise" clause. Yet both are necessary to preserve freedom of conscience, the broader intent of the First Amendment.

According to Eid's interpretation, the state may actively promote generic religious beliefs, so long as the state does not favor "any particular sect or set of religious beliefs," and so long as the state does not establish an official religion. Yet, aside from the fact that every possible state-sanction of religion would involve a "particular sect or set of religious beliefs," Eid entirely neglects our right to remain free from religion. Forcing someone to fund via taxation some religious program or ideology, against the funder's will, is a violation of the person's rights.

Eid presents a slightly more sophisticated variant of Janet Rowland's (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/08/rowland.html) comment about the separation of church and state: "It's not in the Constitution. We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Rowland, the running mate of Bob Beauprez for the governor's race of 2006, got trounced in that election. Consistent with her pronouncement, Rowland promoted the spending of tax dollars for religious welfare and education.

Regardless of the weakness of Eid's case, he illustrates one point with perfect clarity: America's religious right has been enormously successful in advancing its agenda of faith-based politics.

Comment by Allen: To what extent does it even matter what the founders intended? I mean, if they had slaves and didn't intend for women to vote does that mean we should have slaves and women shouldn't vote?

Comment by Neil Parille: The key thing is that when the first amendment was passed, it was not binding on the states ("Congress shall . . ."). It left the states free to keep their established or semi-etablished churches. I think Mass didn't end the establishment of Congregationalism until the 1830s, if I recall. Madison tried to get the Bill of Rights binding on the states, but that failed. So the "separation of church and state" was (in part) the separation of the federal government from the state establishments. It was only with the 14th amendment that the first amendment "arguably" (to use a word I dislike) became applied to the states.

Angry Little ELF

March 3, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News just (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/03/show-homes-ablaze-near-seattle-elf-sign-found/) reported:

WOODINVILLE, Wash.—The radical environmental group responsible for the 1998 fires at Vail's Two Elks Lodge apparently has struck again—in the form of fires at four multimillion-dollar show homes north of Seattle.

The sign—a white sheet that had the initials of the Earth Liberation Front in scraggly red letters—mocked claims the luxury homes on the "Street of Dreams" were environmentally friendly, according to video images of the sign aired by KING-TV.

"Built Green? Nope black!" the sign said.

The blazes are suspicious because they were set in multiple places in separate houses, said Chief Rick Eastman of Snohomish County District Seven. ...

No one was hurt in the arson at UW, but its Center for Urban Horticulture was destroyed and rebuilt at a cost of $7 million.

I just can't believe that ELF was responsible for these fires; think of all the air pollution!

Assuming a real connection, though, this shows that, ultimately, environmentalists are not interested in "green" production; they are interested in no production, for any production necessarily involves the use of natural resources.

Religious Humor

March 4, 2008

Just today I came across the (http://www.realoldtestament.com/HomePage.html) web page for The Real Old Testament, a humorous, and somewhat accurate, portrayal of events as described by the Old Testament. The video covers the Garden of Eden, circumcision, and the test of Abraham and Isaac, among many other events. It mimics the format of MTV's "Real World." The web page contains a lengthy preview; the film is for sale.

(It's still hard to beat Ricky Gervais's (http://youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA) reading of Genesis.)

Pat Condell, a comedian, also jokes about religion, though his messages are quite serious in content if not in style. On his (http://www.patcondell.net/) main page, Condell warns, "I don't respect your beliefs and I don't care if you're offended." His (http://patcondell.libsyn.com/) podcasts and (http://www.youtube.com/patcondell) videos are available.

Mitchell Defends Republicans

March 4, 2008

State Senator Shawn Mitchell sent in the following comments on March 3, which I am happy to post. (In general, if readers have trouble posting comments, please send them to me directly in e-mail, and I'll add them as I deem appropriate.)

Ari,

I meant to thank you for your (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/fake-scandal-de-jour.html) spectacular puncturing of the bogus accusations stemming from that flapdoodle in the Senate with Gordon and Groff. Thanks!

Now, about (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/republicans-against-free-markets.html) this post, let me mount half a defense: Guilty, but the charges are overstated. It surely was not a libertarian vote to retain the blue laws. I've told you before I'm kind of a schizophrenic, libertarian leaning conservative. The vote on Sunday closing came from conservative, not libertarian, thinking. Rather than argue that thinking here, which has less to do with religion than the belief that quite enough alcohol is already bought and sold, and the merchants weren't exactly clamoring for the practical necessity to work seven days, I'll just challenge your conclusions.

A bad market vote doesn't make it a lie for many Republicans, including this one, to claim the mantle of market supporter. We may be imperfect. It would be a lie to claim otherwise. But for willingness to embrace, defend, and advocate the functioning of free markets, Republicans are the only team in town. In bill after bill, the Democrats have grown government control over peoples' free choice, often against united Republican opposition. To suggest some kind of rough party parity, well, I won't call it a lie because I know something of your intellect and character, but it's foolishness.

Shawn Mitchell

Before I get started with my reply, I want to note that I have a great deal of respect for Senator Mitchell, and very often he gets things right. That's why it pains me so much when he gets things wrong.

First I reply to Mitchell's claims about the blue laws. The legislature's proper job is to protect people's rights, not decide how much alcohol is "quite enough" to buy and sell. The correct amount can be defined only by what willing buyers and sellers decide on a free market. And the case for repealing the blue laws has nothing to do with how many merchants enjoy the protectionist legislation. Merchants who do not wish to work on Sundays (or any other day) are free to abstain from doing so, and merchants who wish to work on Sundays have that right. The blue laws violate the rights of both sellers and buyers who wish to trade on Sundays.

While Mitchell can claim to balance his "libertarian" and "conservative" streaks, the choice is in any such case one of protecting or violating individual rights. In this case, Mitchell has voted to violate them.

Moreover, any legislator who votes to violate free markets in such an obvious case has surrendered the very principle of free markets. After casting such a vote, how is Mitchell to respond to Democrats who claim to balance their "libertarian" and "liberal" streaks? "People keep quite enough of their money already, and most taxpayers aren't exactly clamoring to keep the extra X Percent of their income." "People own quite enough guns already, and gun merchants weren't exactly clamoring for the practical necessity of selling more than one per customer." "People have quite enough health-insurance options already, and insurers weren't exactly clamoring for the practical necessity of selling policies on a truly competitive market." Mitchell has turned the entire debate over to pragmatists and compromisers, which can foster only steadily increasing government controls across the board.

Regarding Mitchell's claim that Colorado Republicans generally support free markets:

Who was is that most strongly pressed for the Referendum C net tax hike? Who was it that signed the bill creating the "208" (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/07/208unfair.html) Healthcare Commission? Who was it that pushed for more gun restrictions? It was Republican Governor Bill Owens.

Who was it that supported "faith-based" welfare and (later) health-insurance mandates? It was the Republican gubernatorial candidate for 2006, Bob Beauprez.

Which party funded corporate welfare through all of its years in the majority? The Republicans. (The Democrats are perfectly happy to maintain this tradition.)

Who sponsored the smoking ban? Republican Mike May. And who signed it into law? Republican Bill Owens. (To his credit, Mitchell (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/04/smokevote.html) did vote against this one.)

These are only the local examples that quickly jumped to mind. And a list that included the abuses of George W. Bush and other national Republicans could fill a book.

Obviously, Republicans are at best fickle friends of free markets. I readily grant that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to oppose tax hikes, oppose gun restrictions, and mitigate environmentalist interventions. On the issue of health policy, many Colorado Republicans have been surprisingly supportive of individual rights in medicine.

However, when I wrote "that the Republican Party is the Other Party of Big Government," I also had in mind more personal matters over which Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to impose restrictions. (Such matters also involve market exchanges, but the emphasis is on private decisions.)

Mitchell cosponsored Bill 125 regarding pornography, which the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/22/booksellers-nightmare/) blasted in a February 22 editorial. (Tony Bubb alerted me to Mitchell's support of this bill.) I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/01/1078.html) criticized similar legislation in 2004. I have not analyzed the amended bill, but it seems that the best that can be said for it is that it is unnecessary, given that using children for pornography and child abuse generally are already illegal. More broadly, Republicans seem only too happy to impose censorship where naughty images of consenting adults are concerned.

Most Republicans aggressively push for the drug war and often oppose even modest efforts to reduce criminal penalties for marijuana, even for medical use. (To his credit, Mitchell played a major role in limiting abuses of the asset forfeiture laws, which often are used in drug cases. See my (http://www.freecolorado.com/perpetual/pastissues2002.html) articles from June and April, 2002.)

This year Republicans also tried to impose (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/legislature-tries-to-restrict-guns.html) senseless restrictions on abortions; we'll see whether Republican legislators express their support for the (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/fertilized-egg-is-not-person.html) measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person.

It remains the case that, while Democrats tend to push harder to restrict our economic liberties, Republicans tend to push harder to restrict our personal liberties. But both parties are quite happy to do both in many circumstances. (That's called "bipartisanship.")

So do not forget that the Democratic Party is the Party of Big Government, but "remember that the Republican Party is the Other Party of Big Government."

The Absurdity of 'Revirgination'

March 5, 2008

MSNBC ran a (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23254178/) story on February 28 about "revirgination." Yes, it's as ridiculous as it sounds. Look, if you've had sex, if you've had children, you are not a virgin. Get over it. No, even if you spend $5,000 for a (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23254178/page/2/) new hymen—and who wouldn't want one of those—you are still not a virgin. (God forbid that the money go for anything that is actually of some value.)

Thankfully, I do not have to spend my time pointing out all of the absurdities of "revirgination," for Diana Hsieh has (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/03/second-virginity.html) already done the job. She writes,

Virginity is not even a real quality of a person: it's just an ignorance of and inexperience with sex. Ignorance of sex means incompetence at sex. So for a rational, value-seeking lover, virginity can only be an obstacle to be overcome in the pursuit of the pleasures of sex, not a positive value. For a person to seek virginity requires a mangled set of sexual values.

There is a very dark side to the story, though:

Dr. Red Alinsod's... typical patient [for hymen reconstruction] may have been born and raised in the United States, but with significant family in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, the Middle East. Without evidence a new bride is a virgin, she risks being rejected, or, worse, the victim of an "honor killing."

For many women around the world—particularly in Muslim countries—such threats of murder are difficult to avoid. But surely women "born and raised in the United States" might consider the option of not marrying someone with homicidal siblings. At the cultural level, when women have to lie about their virginity in order not to be murdered, that's a large problem, and surgery is hardly the appropriate remedy.

Linn's Trip to Israel, Part I

March 5, 2008

The Following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080303/OPINION/383075183) appeared on the March 3, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press, under the title, "Terror from another perspective."

Israel trip offers lessons on countering terror

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

This was not your typical tourist trip; it was called the Ultimate Counter Terrorism Mission. Your elder author joined over twenty other Americans February 3-10 to travel to Israel. The group consisted of law enforcement and trainers, producers of anti-terrorism equipment, and those with a deep interest in counter terrorism. This column, written from Linn's perspective, is the first of several about the trip.

To set the stage we need to go back fifteen years in Grand Junction. I had been training civilians for several years in the NRA basic pistol and personnel protection courses. These are excellent classes and serve the community very well. Not only had thousands of individuals benefited from the training but dozens of instructors came from this pool of people. From this pool of instructors several Training Counselors arose who are able to train instructors.

With so many well-trained people in the area, several began to express the desire for more advanced training. In conducting a lot of research and interviewing a number of instructors with impressive qualifications, one name kept popping up: Alon Stivi. Stivi has since conducted various training exercises in and around the Grand Valley.

Stivi is a leading expert on security, violence prevention, counter-terrorism, and travel safety. He has served as an advisor to federal, state, and local government agencies, including the U.S. military and law enforcement. He is the U.S. Master Instructor of the Hisardut Israeli Survival System. Stivi also contributes to the magazine Counter Terrorism.

It was in this magazine that I saw an advertisement for the Counter Terrorism Mission to Israel. Thus began my quest to learn many of the facets of counter terrorism that Israel has to engage in for its own survival.

Although I have done a fair amount of travel over the years I had never had the opportunity to travel Israeli airlines El Al. This presented an opportunity to see first hand the different philosophy between the U.S. and Israel on terrorism.

Most of us are familiar with the process of checking aboard an airplane. I would like to relate an incident that took place in Denver last year. I carry a first-aid kit in my carry-on bag and have carried the same kit for years around the world. This means that it has been subject to dozens and dozens of security checks.

Before my flight out of Denver my bag was pulled and I was asked to open it. Sure enough, my deadly scissors were discovered. They were slightly over two inches long with rounded tips. The lady at the machine did not have the authority to decide on the deadliness of these instruments of destruction. She had to call her supervisor to help with what was approaching a national security issue. The supervisor had to make this life-or-death decision.

The decision was that the scissors were too dangerous. I was asked if I would like to mail this cheap pair of scissors back home at a cost of seven or eight dollars. I responded, "Let's just throw them away." But I couldn't just throw them away; you have to sign a form to throw them away.

I always carry a rather large, stout, pointy ball-point pen with me when I travel. I took this pen from my pocket with a flourish to sign the form and said, "We can't allow these deadly scissors on board." The security agent threw me an unpleasant glare.

El Al's process is different. The first thing that they do is profile people who are going to board the plane. This profile is based on how you answer a number of questions. The Israelis are trained to note both the physical reactions you exhibit and the accuracy of your answers. You are probably profiled several times. You then take your check-in luggage to a big machine that x-rays and sniffs for bombs. If something suspicious is spotted in your bags, you are asked to open the bag. Assuming the bag checks out, you then pick up your ticket, turn in your checked luggage, and proceed through security. Perhaps the U.S. could pick up a few pointers on this process.

Israel's approach to security is built on the onion model, layer after layer. I was reminded of meeting a young couple a few years ago that had immigrated to the U.S. from Israel a few months before. I found the husband to be very interesting; he was a mathematical genius (as well as a world-champion juggler). Now he works in Silicone Valley as a mathematician. Anyway, I asked his wife about the biggest change she had noticed when coming to the U.S. She replied, "going to a shopping mall and not having my bags and purse searched when I entered."

Fortunately, for us terrorism is usually a long way away. Will we keep it that way?

Was Moses on Drugs?

March 6, 2008

I'm not quite sure what to make of this March 4 (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Moses_was_high_on_drugs_Israeli_res_03042008.html) story from RawStory (hat tip (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/) FreedomsPhoenix):

High on Mount Sinai, Moses was on psychedelic drugs when he heard God deliver the Ten Commandments, an Israeli researcher claimed in a study published this week.

Such mind-altering substances formed an integral part of the religious rites of Israelites in biblical times, Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy.

Following is the (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berg/tmdj/2008/00000001/00000001/art00004) abstract of the article:

A speculative hypothesis is presented according to which the ancient Israelite religion was associated with the use of entheogens (mind-altering plants used in sacramental contexts). The hypothesis is based on a new look at texts of the Old Testament pertaining to the life of Moses. The ideas entertained here were primarily based on the fact that in the arid areas of the Sinai peninsula and Southern Israel there grow two plants containing the same psychoactive molecules found in the plants from which the powerful Amazonian hallucinogenic brew Ayahuasca is prepared. The two plants are species of Acacia tree and the bush Peganum harmala. The hypothesis is corroborated by comparative experiential-phenomenological observations, linguistic considerations, exegesis of old Jewish texts and other ancient Mideastern traditions, anthropological lore, and ethnobotanical data.

Notably, the journal makes the full text available for free. I have not yet read through it to see whether the claims are supported by real evidence, but the descriptive "speculative" did jump out at me from the abstract.

Yet I hardly need to entertain the notion that Moses may have been on hallucinogens to reject the claim that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush.

The more interesting implication is for the religious right's war on drugs.

Stay Out of the Wild

March 6, 2008

I made the dreadful mistake of wasting 2.5 hours of my life watching the film Into the Wild. I didn't realize it's based on a true story. I thought I was renting a movie about an Alaskan adventure. No, no, no. If you're interested in watching the film, you might first read the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless) story of Christopher McCandless, on whose life the film is based.

This bit from Wiki should give you some idea of what you're in for:

He was last seen alive by Jim Gallien, who gave him a ride from Fairbanks to the Stampede Trail. Gallien was concerned about "Alex", who had little gear and no experience in the Alaskan bush. Gallien tried to persuade Alex to defer his trip, and even offered to drive him to Anchorage to buy suitable equipment. McCandless refused all assistance except for a pair of rubber boots, two tuna melts, and a bag of corn chips.

The outcome is predictable.

Wiki also notes that McCandless "dreamed about leaving society for a Thoreau-like period of solitary contemplation." Well, he succeeded in leaving society, all right.

The movie is a contradiction. At one point, the film shows McCandless burning his money; the film (http://imdb.com/title/tt0758758/business) cost around $15 million to make and cleared that amount at the U.S. box office. McCandless shuns technology, but the cinematography is fairly good.

I grant that the performances of Kristen Stewart and Hal Holbrook, who portray two of McCandless's friends, are quite good.

But basically this is a movie about a guy who kills himself with self-induced stupidity masked by left-wing platitudes.

When a Pastor Falls

March 7, 2008

Unlike some critics of religion, I do not gleefully rub my hands at news of another fallen Christian. Such news neither wipes away the good character of many Christians nor excuses the sins of some atheists. Nevertheless, I think there are a couple of sober lessons to be gleaned from the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/blogs/web-noise/2008/mar/06/pastorarrested/) following story:

According to NBC affiliate WCNC in Charlotte, N.C., police arrested the senior pastor at St. Luke's Lutheran church in Dilworth after a sting at Park Road Park where they say Robert Graff tried to solicit an undercover male police officer for sex.

"He's a great man, he's a wonderful man. I'm shocked," one church member told the station.

WCNC's report says the 58-year-old Graff is married and has been the pastor at St. Luke's for the past four years.

Of course, these are only allegations at this point. Yet, in light of the problems of other Christian leaders such as Ted Haggard, Christians should bear in mind that it won't do to attribute every sin of every atheist to atheism while denying that any sin of any Christian has anything to do with Christianity. At least Christians should not overstate their claims that Christianity inspires universal moral virtue.

Neither a person's Christianity nor a person's atheism necessarily leads to wrong acts. Both Christians and atheists can lead good, moral lives or fall into misdeeds. However, I would argue that, in cases such as this, Christianity can sometimes play a negative role by encouraging repression. Homosexuals cannot be "cured" by prayer or indoctrination camps. Moreover, there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality (though infidelity is wrong regardless of sexual orientation), so Christianity (at least of a particular variety) tends to inspire both bigotry toward homosexuals and self-loathing and/or repression among homosexuals who accept anti-homosexual doctrine. (I do not mean to suggest that every male who solicits a male prostitute is generally homosexual.)

Meanwhile, I think people of all ideological stripes can wish Graff and his wife well in trying to get their lives back on track.

'Crime Against Nature'

March 7, 2008

In looking up the (http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-030508-al-pastor_arrested.26986c54.html) original story by WCNC about the (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/03/when-pastor-falls.html) pastor in North Carolina who allegedly tried to solicit an undercover male police officer for sex, I read, "Graff is charged with crimes against nature..."

Say what? "Crimes against nature?" Could such a thing actually exist in modern books of statutes?

I looked up the statutes for North Carolina. (http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-177.html) Sure enough:

SUBCHAPTER VII. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALITY AND DECENCY.
Article 26.
Offenses against Public Morality and Decency.
§ 14‑177. Crime against nature.
If any person shall commit the crime against nature, with mankind or beast, he shall be punished as a Class I felon.

You may read the (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_26.html) entire Article 26 if you wish. It is a mixture of justified prohibitions rooted in objective law and and entirely non-objective, ambiguous, and even outright silly prohibitions. Statute 14-196(a)(1) offers another outstanding example of this latter category: "It shall be unlawful for any person [t]o use in telephonic communications any words or language of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious or indecent character, nature or connotation." And I thought Colorado's statutes were pathetic.

Incidentally, the entire (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_27.html) Article 27 is devoted to prostitution.

There is no such thing as a real "crime against nature." Apparently the legislators of North Carolina missed this fact, but nature possesses no consciousness, and thus cannot be offended. Of course, "nature" in this context is euphemism for "God," and the statute is rooted in religious bigotry against homosexuals.

Gazette Defends Mitchell

March 7, 2008

On March 5 The Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/mitchell_33912___article.html/groff_look.html) weighed in on the "look alike" fake scandal that I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/fake-scandal-de-jour.html) discussed earlier. To briefly review, after State Senator Shawn Mitchell named the wrong senator during a debate at the capitol, he joked that Senators Groff and Gordon "look alike" due to their political similarities. To get the context, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/fake-scandal-de-jour.html) look at the photos of Groff and Gordon, who could hardly look more different.

Some of Mitchell's intellectually dishonest critics tried to turn Mitchell's comments into some sort of racial sleight. The Gazette rightly defends Mitchell against any such charges:

At most, the slip says Mitchell pays little attention to looks, race or age. ... It said that despite differences of race, and obvious differences in age and height, Mitchell saw two liberals. The joke said race, height and age don't matter—that what matters is ideology, in which case Gordon and Groff are the same. It's antithetical to the grotesque biases of racism, which would hold Groff and Mitchell as vastly different men, for superficial reasons, regardless of politics.

"But let's say, hypothetically, that Mitchell's comment had some distant connection to the racist comment that people of Heritage X 'all look alike.' Then the force of Mitchell's comment would be to make fun of that racist comment. It's not racist to make fun of racists," wrote Ari Armstrong, on the blog www.freecolorado.com.

The Gazette also offers more details about the dishonest attacks against Mitchell:

Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont [said that]... that Mitchell's comment was inappropriate. ... The progressive Web site www.ProgressActionNow.org pounced on Mitchell's comment, calling it "tasteless above all." The organization deemed Mitchell's explanation "weak as hell." ... The Web site of a liberal organization known as IndependentBasis tried to characterize Mitchell's quote as a racist gaffe, printing his comment like this: "You [blacks] all look the same to me." Never mind that one of the men at the podium was white.

In this last example, not only did Mitchell's critics drop the relevant context, they manufactured a lie about the context. These critics of Mitchell are engaged in character assassination, pure and simple.

The only result of such tactics—other than to treat people unjustly—is to draw attention away from a substantive debate of the issues. Apparently, those engaged in this sort of character assassination don't have anything substantive to say and don't believe they can defend their political views rationally. So they try to tear down their opponents rather than beat them in argument.

Religious Tidbits

March 8, 2008

I've been sitting on several links of interest pertaining to religion.

On February 21 the Ayn Rand Institute issued a (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr004=g8eh0hfzk1.app7a&page=NewsArticle&id=16881&news_iv_ctrl=2089) release that begins, "'Death sentences for blasphemy, such as the one handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan recently, are to be expected under any constitution that enshrines Islam as the state religion and the Koran as the supreme law of the land,' said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute."

Diana Hsieh wrote a February 12 (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/02/protestant-monks.html) blog entry about an (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/03/the_unexpected_monks/?page=full) article discussing Protestant monks. Hsieh writes, "While these new evangelical monks don't embrace the asceticism and isolation of the Catholic tradition, the mere fact that some modern-day Protestants find the deeply religious ideals of the Dark and Middle Ages appealing should be cause for concern to secularists. Christianity was tamed by the Enlightenment, but not permanently. It can and will return to its dark and wild roots, if unchecked by reason."

The Undercurrent features a February 19 (http://the-undercurrent.com/blog/yes-religion-does-take-us-back-into-the-dark-ages/) blog entry by Eric Brunner that begins, "An Iraqi Muslim man on U.A.E. television (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1684.htm) recently proclaimed that the moon is half the size of the sun, that the earth and the sun are flat, and that things that aren't mentioned in the Koran are not to be considered in the matter. The man was on a show in which the contestants were debating whether or not the Earth is really flat or not, on a television station that is supposed to be the voice of the Iraqi people."

And a February 15 (http://the-undercurrent.com/blog/saudi-government-outlaws-red-for-valentines-day/) entry from The Undercurrent states, "[I]n Saudi Arabia yesterday, the color red was outlawed. The Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice symbolically (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/red-alert-saudi.html) forbade Saudi citizens to celebrate Valentine's Day."

There's a new Colorado-based group called the (http://secularvoters.org/) Coalition of Secular Voters. I don't know anything about the group other than what's contained on its web page.

Father Jonathan Morris (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330347,00.html) wrote for Fox News on February 11: "The Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Rowlan Williams, recently proposed the United Kingdom to establish separate courts, based on Sharia Law, for British Muslims. He says it will promote 'social cohesion' and will free Muslims from being forced to choose between 'the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.' The archbishop's rogue proposal and subsequent rationale should serve as a warning for all Western countries, including the United States, where immigration influx is challenging cultural identity." But immigration is hardly the central problem. After all, immigrants aren't behind Father Morris's call to impose faith-based politics such as by (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324370,00.html) outlawing abortions.

On a lighter note, The Denver Post now hosts a (http://blogs.denverpost.com/highernote) blog called "Higher Note" about Christian music. I don't suppose that there's anything particularly Christian about the music itself, but the idea is that the lyrics and shows promote Christianity. Just do not, under any circumstances, watch (http://southpark.comedycentral.com/videos.jhtml?videoId=103761&episodeId=103772) this video featuring "Faith + 1," which is not a "Higher Note" favorite.

Update on Health Studies

March 8, 2008

In a February 10 article for The Denver Post, Katy Human wrote, "Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations and less likely to be absent from school."

My immediate thought upon reading this claim is that it doesn't indicate the causal relationship. (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/studies-have-shown.html) So I asked Human about this, and she replied that the studies "control for factors such as income and education of parents." I wanted to check this and see what else the studies have to say, so I asked Human to provide me with the citations. On February 21 Human sent me a list of studies. Linda Gorman looked into the studies, and then Dave Kopel also took an interest in them. He checked into the studies originally mentioned by Human, looked at other studies as well, and wrote up (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/08/kopel-too-often-a-crutch/) his results for the March 8 Rocky Mountain News:

None of five studies Human cited after the fact support her article's statement about what "studies have shown" regarding the effects of insurance on emergency room use, vaccinations and school absences. Indeed four of the five studies she cited do not even address those topics (Cousineau, Medical Care, 2008; Skinner, BMC Health Services Research, 2007; Ward, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2008; Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Sept. 7, 2007).

One study cited by Human was relevant, and it directly contradicted her article's claim. The study looked at the effect of providing SCHIP coverage (subsidized insurance for children whose families have too much income to qualify for Medicaid). Emergency room usage "did not change," the study found. (Szilagyi, Pediatrics, 2004).

... [Later] Human supplied two more citations to substantiate her article's claim about emergency rooms. One of the studies was irrelevant, a 2002 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report which reported no data about frequency of emergency room use for the insured and uninsured.

Human supplied another study which did support her claim. William Johnson and Mary Rimsza investigated Yuma County, Ariz., and found that uninsured children there use emergency rooms more often. The Johnson and Rimsza article, published in Pediatrics in 2004, forthrightly acknowledged that four other studies have found that taxpayer-funded insurance for children actually increases emergency room usage, and a fifth study finds that there is no effect. Johnson and Rimsza suggested that results were different in Arizona because the state's medical welfare program links recipients to pediatricians, and having a pediatrician drastically reduces ER visits for both the insured and uninsured.

Of course, a broad correlation between lack of insurance and emergency-room visits is still possible for at least a couple of reasons. First, some people without insurance are more likely to visit the emergency room—which by law must provide care for no compensation—for care that is less-expensively offered at the regular doctor's office or at lower-cost clinics. Second—and this point also applies to vaccinations and school attendance—parents who purchase health insurance for their children may be more likely to be employed, make more money, have a higher level of education, live in safer neighborhoods and homes, encourage healtheir lifestyles for their children, and insist on regular school attendance. This is a statement only of anticipated averages; many model parents are less wealthy, and many parents pay for their children's health care out of pocket rather than through insurance.

However, the thrust of Human's article was not to reveal correlations regarding health insurance, but to advocate more tax funding for health programs. Everyone can agree that it would be good for more parents to buy health insurance for their children (though insurance as such should move in the direction of high-deductible policies with routine expenses paid out of pocket). But expanded tax subsidies create all sorts of problems with incentives, such as by encouraging some parents to drop private insurance in favor of tax-funded welfare.

It's quite a leap from "insurance for children is good" to "politicians should expand their control of medicine." Indeed, as Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) argue, the proper way to make health-insurance more affordable is to repeal the existing political controls that have made it so expensive.

Boulder Police Chief: Allow 18-Year-Olds to Drink

March 9, 2008

John C. Ensslin wrote a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/06/police-chiefs-alcohol-talk-stirs-activists/) story for the March 6 Rocky Mountain News that describes some of the views of Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner regarding the drinking age. Ensslin reports:

"... I can say in summary that in addition to personal philosophical arguments (they are considered adults in every other way), I believe that the level of drinking between the ages of 18 to 21 has actually increased over the last 20 years," Beckner wrote [in a letter to City Council members].

"All of the efforts we have tried to implement over the years, including education, awareness programs, heavy enforcement, etc., have had little effect on preventing 18- to 20-year-old adults from drinking.

"What we've done is helped create an underground culture that encourages binge drinking without any oversight or supervision."

Ensslin wrote a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/07/drinking-age-isnt-working-chief-says/) follow-up article further explaining Beckner's views:

Beckner stressed that his department is not backing off enforcement of existing laws.

Nor is he suggesting lawmakers simply lower the drinking age without taking steps to encourage responsible drinking.

For example, Beckner said the law could require an 18-year-old to attend a mandatory alcohol awareness class to earn the right to drink.

He suggested that perhaps the law could allow 18- to 21- year-olds to drink in a restaurant but not buy alcohol from package stores.

Any change would have to come on a national level, he said.

I have long favored setting the drinking age at the age of legal adulthood, which is 18 in our society. It's not right that a person can get married, have children, sign contracts, and fight in war—but not buy a beer.

Following are three articles I've written about the matter previously:

(http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/12/dempsey-challenges-unreasonable-alcohol.html) Dempsey Challenges Unreasonable Alcohol Laws
(http://www.freecolorado.com/ari/ilib/drinkingage.html) Fight Colorado's Discriminatory Drinking Age Law
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/08/milesdrink18.html) Miles Supports Lower Drinking Age

Iran Murders Homosexual

March 10, 2008

Back in September, when the United States government shamefully permitted Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—in fact a primary and aggressive enemy of the United States—to enter the United States, Ahmadinejad claimed that there are no homosexuals in Iran. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297823,00.html) He said, "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."

There's a good reason why Iranians don't admit to homosexuality: Iran murders homosexuals as a matter of official policy.

On March 9, the AP (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336272,00.html) reported:

Mehdi Kazemi, 19, came to London to study English in 2005 but later discovered that his boyfriend had been arrested by the Iranian police, charged with sodomy and hanged.

Mr Kazemi was told by his father in Tehran that his boyfriend had been questioned about his sexual relationships before his execution in April 2006 and named him under interrogation.

Mr Kazemi claimed asylum in Britain, fearing for his life if he returned to Iran but his case was refused late last year. He fled Britain for the Netherlands, where he is now being detained.

The article notes that the fate of Kazemi is now in the hands of the Dutch courts. I find it astounding that Britain refused to offer Kazemi protection. Absent important relevant facts not revealed by the AP, Britain's decision was inexcusable. Hopefully Kazemi will find protection elsewhere. If the United States had sensible immigration policies, he would be offered a (voluntarily funded) plane ticket to America.

Biddle Defends Open Immigration

March 10, 2008

Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, has written a persuasive (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights.asp) defense of open immigration. Biddle explains:

Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases. Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.

Biddle basis his central argument on the principle of individual rights. Consistent with their right to live, pursue their happiness, and act on their own judgment, people have a right to move to a new region, and the residents of that region have the right to voluntarily employ and otherwise associate with the immigrants. After explaining this central argument in detail and illustrating it with examples, Biddle then goes on to answer seven particular objections. He explains why each objection to open immigration either implies a violation of people's rights or, when properly understood, actually supports the policy of open immigration.

I would add only two points to Biddle's analysis.

First, in his discussion of jobs and wage rates (the third objection that he considers), Biddle rightly emphasizes the moral point that forbidding free association of employers and employees violates the rights of both. However, Biddle might have offered a brief economic analysis here to the effect that free markets, including free migration, ultimately enables a nation's residents to create the most wealth. Economics shows, for instance, that a free economy can accommodate any number of workers, and that real wages depend foremost upon production and can expand even if monetary wages remain flat or go down. Liberty in employment is moral, and, because it is moral, it is practical; any rational producer in a region stands ultimately to benefit from open immigration in the context of free markets.

Second, in answering the objection about culture (the second objection), Biddle doesn't directly counter one important variant of the objection. Biddle rightly rejects the racial argument out of hand, and he strongly counters objections about language and lifestyles. Yet some critics will invoke a fourth variant of the general objection.

The objection runs as follows: the United States is built on and sustained by a set of cultural traditions involving limited government and personal responsibility. These cultural traditions are what keep America strong (economically and otherwise), and letting too many people move in who lack these traditions threatens to undermine the American way of life. Limited immigration is fine (by this objection), but it must be restricted so that new immigrants absorb American traditions rather than impose the traditions of their homelands. Basically, the fear is that the government of the United States will start to look more and more like the government of Mexico, with increasing levels of welfare, unemployment, and political corruption. Various regions of Europe, to take another example, are struggling with Muslim immigrants who do not always assimilate to the culture of their new homes.

Biddle implicitly replies to this objection elsewhere in his essay.

One important point that Biddle raises against the objection is that immigrants are not, on the whole, interested in living under the political traditions of their homeland; that's why they moved. Immigrants tend to be independent, hard-working, and industrious, and they tend to be at least as likely as native-born Americans to support the institutions of liberty. (Writing from personal experience, some of the truest Americans I've ever met are immigrants.)

Biddle also points out that restrictions on immigration, along with the welfare state, are the greatest barriers to attracting industrious immigrants. The restrictions keep out many of the best potential immigrants, while the welfare state attracts some of the least-industrious ones. The solution to this problem is not to restrict immigration, but to repeal the policies that have created the problem.

What about the problem of immigrants trying to import, say, (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330347,00.html) sharia law? Biddle point out that objective, rights-protecting laws should be fully enforced by a government "with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographic area," which means that rights-violating policies and actions should be prohibited. Biddle also makes the more general point that free markets tend to encourage immigrants to participate in the broader economy and thus the broader culture. (In addition, Biddle notes, the issue of immigration is separable from the issue of citizenship.)

Biddle also suggests a central contradiction with the objection about cultural traditions: you can't support the American traditions of free markets and industriousness by actively undermining those traditions by imposing rights-violating anti-immigration policies. The best way to promote good American institutions, both at home and abroad, is to fully achieve them at home. Immigration restrictions send the message, "America is so devoted to free markets that its policies prohibit free markets in labor." In fact, immigration restrictions actively violate and tear down the best American traditions. You can't support free markets and industriousness by prohibiting free markets and barring entry to industrious people.

I want to add a couple of points specific to the conservative motivation for this objection about culture.

Conservatives hold that beliefs and values gain force primarily when they are inculcated by society at large and passed down from parents to children within families. There is an element of truth to this; many people never develop the independence required to think through their ideas and reach their own conclusions. Instead, many people passively pick up the ideas expressed by those around them. However, individuals always remain free to question the ideas with which they are surrounded. As Biddle explains in his essay:

People, including immigrants and would-be immigrants, have free will; they choose to think or not to think, to act on reason or to act on feelings, to respect individual rights or to violate them. A person's choice to respect or violate individual rights is not dictated by his national origin or his race or his language, but by his philosophy, which can be either rational or irrational, depending on whether or not he chooses to think.

The conservative objection about culture is actually a variant of collectivism, for it presumes that an individual's ideas are determined by the surrounding society. In fact, individuals have the ability to think for themselves, and many immigrants do so.

By seeking to impose immigration restrictions, conservatives do not in fact promote the American traditions of free markets and personal responsibility. Such conservatives actually promote the traditions of statism and collectivism.

For many conservatives, the objection about culture assumes a more political form: Hispanic voters tend to vote for Democrats over Republicans. Yet if Republicans actually stood for free markets and industriousness, they would seek to repeal restrictions on immigration (as well as welfare support for immigrants), and thereby win the political support of many immigrants.

Biddle's essay effectively answers every serious objection to open immigration, though Biddle addresses the objection about cultural traditions indirectly. Biddle's essay serves as a blue-print in immigration policy for those who actually want to foster what is best about America.

New 'Sins'

March 11, 2008

An (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8521374) article by the Associated Press alerted me to comments by Bishop Gianfranco Girotti regarding "new sins." Yet I found an (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801336.htm) article by Catholic News Service to provide a better overview:

In today's globalized culture, the social effects of sin are greater than ever before and deserve the church's urgent attention, a Vatican official said. ...

Bishop Girotti is an official of the Apostolic Penitentiary, an office that deals with questions relating to penance and indulgences. He made the comments in an interview March 8 with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. ...

Among the "new sins" that have emerged in recent times, he pointed to genetic experiments and manipulation that violate fundamental human rights and produce effects difficult to foresee and control.

He said other areas where sin has a social impact include drug abuse, which affects many young people; economic injustice, which has left the poor even poorer and the rich richer; and environmental irresponsibility.

In typical Catholic fashion, Girotti offers a grab-bag of real misdeeds and make-believe "sins."

It's not very big news that abusing drugs is bad for you; nor is this a new problem.

But, within the broader context of individual rights, genetic science does not "violate fundamental human rights;" it instead promises to alleviate human suffering. The violation of rights is to squash scientific investigation based on religious dogma.

Economic injustice is not properly defined by differences in wealth; on the contrary, in a free society differences of wealth reflect the just distribution of wealth based on individual production and voluntary association. Actual economic injustice arises when governments and criminals violate people's rights, including their rights to control their own income and property. Such violations of rights often impoverish some people and unjustly enrich others. But the Catholic Church is more concerned with encouraging political force in the economy, which violates economic justice.

Finally, "environmental irresponsibility," properly understood, means polluting somebody's particular property, a problem properly handled through the legal system. Responsibility does not mean buying into environmentalist hysteria, feeling guilty about producing and consuming life-enhancing goods and services, or pushing politicians to violate people's rights for environmentalist causes. It makes sense, though, for environmentalists and Christians to find common cause, for both movements thrive on people's guilt.

Peikoff's Tenth Podcast

March 11, 2008

(http://www.peikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff has released his (http://www.peikoff.com/MP3FILES/Podcast10.mp3) tenth podcast. My brief summary here is intended to raise interest in the podcast, not serve as a substitute for Peikoff's comments. Peikoff addresses six questions.

1. Granted that the economy should be free, can real "flesh and blood," "cunning" men achieve and sustain a free economy? Peikoff answers that the notion of "flesh and blood" as inherently corrupt is a fundamentally mystical, supernaturalist presumption. If "cunning" means tempted to fraud, then many people are in fact honest, and fraud is outlawed under capitalism.

2. What is existence? Peikoff notes that existence is not an attribute of something else; it is that which is.

3. Do great works of art inspire philosophical movements, or is the reverse the case? Peikoff answers that it "works both ways," but philosophy is primary. For example, Atlas Shrugged "presupposed Ayn Rand's philosophy." Yet, even though the nature of a work of art is determined by philosophical ideas, "art is the greatest disseminator of philosophy that there is."

4. Why is Ayn Rand not taken seriously in some intellectual circles? Peikoff answers that several reasons may be possible. Many people have so automatized such ideas as altruism and the analytic-synthetic dichotomy that Rand's ideas seem alien.

5. On the other hand, why have Rand's ideas grown more respectable in some intellectual circles and in the culture at large? Peikoff gives much of the credit to "heroic individuals like Tara Smith and Robert Mayhew... who have distinguished themselves" in academia.

6. Will religious views in the culture and among politicians translate to courts and the law? Peikoff draws an analogy to socialism, which was once also rejected by the courts. Over time, dominant ideas do influence legal systems. "Religion is now in the process of replacing socialism" as a social and legal influence, as Peikoff argues in his forthcoming book about DIM, Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration.

Baptists Join Global-Warming Crusade

March 12, 2008

Yesterday I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/03/new-sins.html) pointed out that Catholics have jumped on the environmentalist band-wagon. Gus Van Horn (http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/03/green-with-envy.html) notes that influential Southern Baptists have (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080310/southern_baptists_environment.html?.v=1) declared "a biblical duty to stop global warming."

The AP's article continues:

The signers of "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change" acknowledged that not all Christians accept the science behind global warming. They said they do not expect fellow believers to back any proposed solutions that would violate Scripture, such as advocating population control through abortion.

However, the leaders said that current evidence of global warming is "substantial," and that the threat is too grave to wait for perfect knowledge about whether, or how much, people contribute to the trend. ...

Even before Monday's statement, religious activism on climate change had broadened beyond just liberal-leaning churches. The 1993 "Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation" became a guiding document for the Evangelical Environmental Network. The Rev. Rich Cizik, Washington director of the National Association of Evangelicals, became a prominent environmental advocate, trying to persuade conservative Christians that global warming is real. Polls of younger evangelicals found they considered environmental protection a priority.

Van Horn comments:

For anyone who still thinks that religion is any kind of a bulwark against the left or socialism, please note the priorities [noted in the article]. The codified oral traditions of primitive tribesmen from millennia ago are to be obeyed even if they contradict minor aspects of this agenda, and yet they somehow know that this "threat" is "too grave" to worry about whether human beings really do contribute to global warming!

Over the last few decades, conservatives such as (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5128) Bill Buckley have tried to capture the evangelical movement to create a "fusionist" challenge to the left. Now evangelicals are dragging conservatives (even further) to the left on economic issues. Conservatives long ago adopted the welfare state and various economic controls as their own, and now they are increasingly eager to impose economic restrictions based on the environmentalist agenda (for example, see John McCain). What few conservatives remain who actually care about liberty, individual rights, and free markets are finding that it's hard to steer the wagon once it's hitched to irrationalism.

Boulder Bans Pink Pooch

March 12, 2008

Unbelievable. Put (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/11/boulder-woman-ticketed-dyeing-her-poodle-pink/) this is the "only in Boulder" file:

The Boulder salon owner facing a $1,000 fine for dyeing her miniature poodle pink will have to wait for her day in court.

... Joy Douglas, owner of Zing Salon... appeared before a judge in Boulder Municipal Court and asked for her hearing to be rescheduled because she's retained a defense attorney.

The judge granted Douglas' request and reset her hearing for April 7.

Officials at the Humane Society of Boulder Valley issued Douglas a ticket on March 1 for violating Section 6-1-14 of Boulder's city code, titled "Dyeing fowl and rabbits prohibited."

Douglas has insisted she didn't break that law, because she uses beet juice—and occasionally Kool-Aid—to "stain" her dog Cici's coat. She said she never has used chemicals, and her pooch never has had a reaction to the stain. ...

She also reiterated her claim that she dyed the dog pink to support breast cancer awareness.

Is this some sort of elaborate practical joke? Apparently not. (http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/chapter6-1.htm) Here is the code in question:

6-1-14 Dyeing Fowl and Rabbits Prohibited; Selling Dogs, Cats, and Fowl Limited.

(a) No person shall dye or color live fowl, rabbits, or any other animals or have in possession, display, sell, or give away such dyed or colored animals.

This reminds me of the colorful horses in the Wizard of Oz—except that Oz makes a hell of lot more sense than Boulder policies.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8533053) adds:

Not everyone who saw pink Cici was pleased, and some customers called the Humane Society of Boulder Valley, whose commissioned officers enforce the city's animal ordinances. ...

"We've received a number of complaints about the dog," said Lisa Pedersen, director of the humane society. "We've been out to talk with Joy several times. Finally, we gave her a ticket to let the courts decide the issue."

"This is a misrepresentation of what animal control is supposed to be," said Douglas, who drives a pink scooter, a pink car and now is looking for a lawyer to represent her and her pink dog. "This doesn't hurt Cici at all. We color her about once a week to keep it bright. She's fine."

Pedersen agreed that the dog appears to be well-cared for, except that she's pink.

So then why doesn't Pedersen—and the other intolerant asses in Boulder who registered the complaints—mind their own damned business?

Eight Potter Movies

March 12, 2008

What I hoped would come true has now come true: The seventh Harry Potter novel will be split into two movies. The Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-potter13mar13,0,7162166.story) reports:

After months of rumors, Warner Bros. and the producers of the massively successful movies will announce Thursday that they plan to split "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," J.K. Rowling's seventh and final "Potter" novel, into two blockbuster films—one to be released in November 2010 and the second in May 2011.

... Director David Yates, who returned for his second tour of Potter duty with "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and is quite popular with the cast, will direct both "Deathly Hallows" films, which will be filmed concurrently.

Yates also directed Order of the Phoenix.

The article adds, "Producer David Heyman said the decision was made with some anxiety and only after considerable deliberations. The producer... fretted that the cynical observers would see the decision as a purely mercenary move." But anyone familiar with the seventh book understands that it simply contains too much material for a single movie. And why in the hell shouldn't these great movies make loads of money?

"Heyman said... the next challenge is figuring out the division." I have (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/notes-on-harry-potter-movies.html) already indicated where I think the movie should be split:

I hope that the producers of the films consider splitting the seventh book—The Deathly Hallows—into two movies. There is simply too much material in the book to allow for a single movie of reasonable length. Besides, there's a perfect place the split the movie: Chapter 24. Specifically, page 481. I think readers of the book will understand what I mean. Ending the movie there would be a fitting tribute to the character who fills that page. Then the eighth movie could be called, Harry Potter and the Battle of Hogwarts. Obviously, they should film both movies during the same period to save costs and maintain better continuity. Splitting the final book into two movies would make the studio a lot more money as well as please fans.

According to the article, the movies will simply be called "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I" and "Part II." That's fine by me.

ARI on YouTube

March 14, 2008

The Ayn Rand Institute has released (http://youtube.com/user/AynRandInstitute) several videos on YouTube. Recent releases address the topic, "Reasons vs. Faith."

In (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z87IeNbLA0) one video, a questioner asks, By what standard does one evaluate the concepts of right and wrong in the absence of a supernatural being?

Onkar Ghate answers, "The standard becomes your life and its requirements." He goes on to explain some of those requirements and why they give rise to the need for morality in the first place. Finally, Ghate criticizes the notion that religion can offer legitimate moral absolutes. He offers the example of God commanding Abraham to kill Isaac. Such morality is actually a sort of "supernatural subjectivism," akin to personal subjectivism.

Other videos address the Old Testament, the foundations of capitalism, the clash of Western civilization, and other topics, and they are uniformly excellent.

Tanner Defends Liberty in Medicine

March 14, 2008

Michael Tanner (http://www.cato.org/people/tanner.html) of the Cato Institute spoke at the Independence Institute March 6 about health policy. (He is shown with Lin Zinser of (http://www.westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine and (http://whoownsyou.org/) Brian Schwartz.)

The bulk of Tanner's speech (around 37 minutes) is available (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/tanner.mp3) here in mp3 format.

Tanner began by noting that the U.S. has the best health care in the world, despite its problems. While life span is not an appropriate basis for comparison because many other important factors impact it, the U.S. performs well in terms of outcomes for diseases.

While some complain that the U.S. spends "too much" for health care, Tanner noted that reducing costs is not an end in itself. "It's very cheap not to provide health care," he said. The problem is that American health care often is not subject to market pricing.

Another problem is that "too many people... are uninsured." However, Tanner added, often-cited measures of the problem are misleading. Because insurance is tied to employment, people often lose their insurance for a short time as they change jobs.

Tanner then reviewed harmful policies and proposals in Britain, Canada, and the U.S., such as the attempt by some to force employers to provide insurance for all employees. That proposal "flunks Econ 101," Tanner said, because it would reduce wages elsewhere and/or result in more unemployment.

What about forcing individuals to purchase insurance? Tanner noted the real costs of forcing emergency rooms to treat people without compensation. (Tanner did not suggest any change to that policy, though I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/force-versus-choice-in-medical-care.html) argued against it.) However, Tanner noted, such costs account for only around 2.5 to 4 percent of health-care spending, rendering them "somewhat manageable."

The problems of insurance mandates, on the other hand, would be severe. Such insurance would be subject to political rules; people would no longer be free to purchase the insurance they wanted. Insurance mandates are difficult to enforce, and it's impossible to force everyone to buy insurance. Mandated insurance is subject to continual pressure by interest groups to expand coverage, which expands costs and leads to limits on care.

Tanner said that the most important reforms must take place at the federal level, particularly regarding the tax code that entrenches expensive, employer-paid insurance. At the state level, the cost of insurance can be reduced by eliminating various mandates.

The key question, Tanner said, is this: "Do you decide, or does someone else decide for you?"

Wright vs. Hagee: Pick Your Crazy

March 15, 2008

Mark Wolf of the Rocky Mountain News (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/rockytalklive/archives/2008/03/should_we_care_what_the_pastor.html) has collected some (shall we say) interesting quotes from two pastors tangentially related to the presidential campaign. Wolf writes, "Jeremiah Wright who recently retired from Obama's church, married the Obamas and baptized their children." And John Hagee endorsed John McCain. All links are originally from Wolf except for a link to Hagee's web page. What do these two Christian leaders believe?

Wolf points to a (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1) story from ABC about Wright:

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

So, to Wright, the fact that the U.S. bombed a nation that brutally attacked and waged war against the U.S., and the U.S. failed to side with Palestinian terrorist campaigns, means that the U.S. deserved or invited the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Wright's views are somewhat similar to those of Ward Churchill, who also used the line about chickens roosting with respect to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Wright's comments are reprehensible.

Hagee has (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN_CATHOLICS?SITE=CODER&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) taken heat for comments that he made regarding the Catholic Church. Hagee (http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=47BEB58F9EF24337835DB74C0E0760D9&SiteID=4AC79C9B25B24DF3AF21C42311BE3921) claims some of his comments were taken out of context. You can hear these comments for yourself in a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA) video from Veracifier available through YouTube. Hagee's statements about the Catholic Church hardly reveal the extent of the man's lunacy. When Hagee makes the following remarks, he is pointing to a figurine of a person riding atop a horned lion:

This [it's unclear whether Hagee is pointing to the lion or the person] is the great whore of Revelation 17. This [the lion] is the antichrist system. This [the person] is the apostate church. In this cup [held by the person] if you will read it in the book of Revelation is the blood of the saints. This is talking principally about the blood of the Jewish people. Where? From the crusades, that happened back here [earlier on a timeline]. From the Spanish Inquisition. From the Holocaust. When Adolf Hitler came to power he said, I'm not going to do anything in my lifetime that hasn't been done by the Roman church for the past 800 years, I'm only going to do it on a greater scale, and more efficiently. And he certainly had done just exactly that. God has said, I gave you the time to repent, but you did not. You [the person], this false cult system, that was born in Genesis 10, and progressed through Israel and became Baal worship, God says, the day is going to come, when I'm going to cause this beast [the lion] to devour this apostate system [the person]. So you can see very clearly that, while the church is in heaven, this false religious system [the person] is going to be totally devoured by the antichrist.

The same YouTube video plays a selection of Hagee from a radio interview; Wolf includes the following text:

From an interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio's Fresh Air program:

GROSS: I just want to ask you one question based on one of your sermons that—and this isn't about Israel. You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said "when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn." Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are—were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but 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 the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

GROSS: So I know you're very opposed to homosexuality, but you think that the whole city was punished because of things like the forthcoming Gay Pride parade.

HAGEE: This is true. All of the city was punished because of the sin that happened there in that city.

I don't think I need to criticize Hagee's comments in greater depth other than to denounce them completely. Anybody who actually believes what Hagee is saying is so detached from reality that rational discussion is probably beside the point. Hagee represents the mentality of the Dark Ages.

Team Hsieh

March 15, 2008

Congratulations to Coloradans Paul and Diana Hsieh, who each had letters published recently in big papers.

Paul's (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0307/p08s04-cole.html) letter to The Christian Science Monitor states:

... National healthcare programs violate the rights of consumers and healthcare providers to contract freely for medical services according to their best judgment. Such programs inevitably lead to rising costs and rationing, as demonstrated repeatedly in Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

In contrast, the free market consistently lowers costs and increases availability. Those sectors of medicine that are least regulated by the government (such as LASIK and cosmetic surgery) have shown the typical pattern over time of falling prices and rising quality that we take for granted in the rest of the US economy. Because the free market respects individual rights, it is the only practical and moral solution for the problem of rising healthcare costs.

Diana's (http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080312/EDITORIAL/228641617/1013/EDITORIAL&template=nextpage) reply to a (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/COMMENTARY/229330777/1012) column by Dick Armey states:

Thanks to Dick Armey... for defending intellectual property in broadcast radio as a matter of justice to the creators.

Today's producers of music artists, management and record companies offer consumers around the world a vast array of music for all tastes. Those producers deserve to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts, not cheated of royalties by legal loopholes for broadcast radio or online file sharing.

While the Hsiehs cover quite different topics in these letters, both letters uphold the principle of individual rights.

Legal Prostitution: Article in Rocky Mountain News

March 15, 2008

Subscribers to the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/) Rocky Mountain News may notice an article of mine today on page 26 (in the second news section). It's titled, "Should prostitution be legal?" Unfortunately, the News has not made the text of the article available on its web page at this point (a matter that I'll try to resolve).

[March 17 Update: The article is (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/) now available online.]

After discussing some non-vices that are sometimes banned and some vices that are not banned, I describe prostitution as a vice that should not be banned. Here is my central claim: "The proper purpose of government is to protect people's rights, not prevent vice beyond that context." I add that prostitution (between consenting adults) should not be banned because it does not violate anyone's rights.

Notice that I do not use the phrase, "victimless crime." Opponents of legal prostitution (and legal drugs) argue that the activity harms third parties. However, that's not the relevant distinction when defining legitimate crimes. Instead, the relevant factor is whether someone initiated physical force (or fraud). Without that element, no action should be considered a crime. Take the following example. A father who doesn't work, but who lays around on the couch all day watching television while his wife works a low-income job, thereby harms his children. But should laziness be banned? Clearly not. Obviously, Eliot Spitzer harmed his family by hiring prostitutes. But he did not initiate physical force. Single people have no family to harm, though arguably they still harm third parties, but again no initiation of force is involved.

The final two-thirds of the article considers four objections to legal prostitution (see the text).

Here I want to add several qualifications based on the comments of various readers. (The article has fewer than 650 words, so it is highly essentialized.)

Thanks to the advice (and reference) of Brian Schwartz, I did not use the phrase "legalized prostitution" in an effort to try to avoid the sort of definitional issues that Wendy McElroy (http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/prostsol.html) addresses:

Legalization (or regulation): government has registered prostitutes with the police and subjected them to rules meant to protect health and public decency. Legalization refers to some form of state controlled prostitution. It often includes mandatory medical exams, special taxes, licensing, or the creation of red light districts. It always includes a government record of who is a prostitute, information which is commonly used for other government purposes. For example, some countries in Europe indicate whether a person is a prostitute on his or her passport. This restricts that person's ability to travel since many countries will automatically refuse entry on that basis. Controlling legalized prostitution usually falls to the police. ...

Decriminalization (or tolerance): all laws against prostitution have been abolished. It refers to the removal of all laws against prostitution, including laws against pimping. Almost all prostitutes' rights groups in North America call for the decriminalization of consensual adult sex on the grounds that laws against such sex violate civil liberties, such as the freedom of association.

The individualist feminist approach to prostitution is to advocate decriminalization: that is, the abolition of all laws against selling sex.

My goal with the article was to argue for legal prostitution, without getting into the debate that McElroy reviews.

However, I may need to clarify the following sentence in my article: "On a legal market, both prostitutes and their solicitors would be screened and monitored much more carefully..." What I had in mind is that both houses of prostitution and independent prostitutes would have the ability to screen clients more carefully, and houses of prostitution and and other parties would have a greater incentive and ability to screen and monitor prostitutes. Of course knowingly putting someone at risk of a sexually-transmitted disease (without disclosure) should be illegal across the board, for prostitutes and everyone else.

In discussing the legality of prostitution in the article, I mean to address only criminal law. Obviously any sort of infidelity violates the typical marital contract, but contract is a matter of civil law.

Hopefully the entire text of the article will become available for online readers soon.

[March 17 Update: The article is (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/) now available online.]

Hindu Hard-Liners

March 16, 2008

Actor Richard Gere found himself in a bit of trouble in India, as the Rocky Mountain News reported March 15 based on AP material:

India's top court suspended an arrest warrant Friday against Hollywood star Richard Gere, wanted for allegedly breaking public obscenity laws by kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty at a public AIDS awareness event last year, an attorney [Anil Grover] said. ...

Gere embraced and kissed Shetty on her cheek at the public AIDS awareness event in New Delhi on April 15 last year, prompting Hindu hard-liners to allege the pair had offended the sensibilities of India's traditionally conservative culture.

How dare Gere kiss a woman on the cheek during an effort to reduce AIDS! The horror of it all! Blindfold the children! Call the police!

Or the "Hindu hard-liners" could investigate that wonderful American invention: the Chill Pill.

Tupa on Adverse Possession

March 16, 2008

State Senator Ron Tupa sent out an e-mail about a bill regarding adverse possession, the legal doctrine by which non-owners of land can claim ownership of the land after a certain length of use. Clearly such a doctrine has its place, but, equally clearly, it was abused in a recent Boulder case. From what I can tell, the bill that Tupa describes would provide a good corrective to the doctrine. Following are some of Tupa's remarks:

Most of you know that HB-1148 is a HOUSE bill that I am proudly carrying in the senate... my interest goes beyond simply correcting a glaring injustice... I would support the legislation in any case, but the Kirlin case which brought the issue to the public's attention also happened in my senate district (and Rep. Levy's house district) , so I feel somewhat more attached to the issue than most legislators...

Obviously, [adverse possession has] been around for hundreds of years and has worked well both in the past and present in the overwhelming majority of property / boundary disputes between parties... clearly, adverse possession has a place where (typically) one neighbor unwittingly used or encroached upon an adjacent neighbor's property for many years without objection and, once the error was discovered , a legal mechanism needed to be used to transfer the property from the title owner (the owner of record) to the owner who was actually in possession of the property and using it (in this case, the adverse possessor).... other instances abound where one property owner places a fence or other structure on what he/she thought was their property and used the land for years thinking it was their property only to find out many years later the fence or structure was, in fact, mistakenly placed on someone else's property, etc....

These types of cases or instances really don't rise to the level of public interest... no one gets angry when these types of title transfers occur... if mistakes are made, allowances address the mistakes... usually amicably...

The REAL PROBLEM the public takes issue with, and the reason for HB-1148, are instances where a neighbor or someone else (a trespasser) KNOWINGLY uses someone else's property for years (18 in our state) and can somehow gain title to the land... the law allows this... and if you delve into the history of adverse possession, the law in fact encourages this to happen... its based on theory that is now hundreds of years old, to "use it or lose it"... the whole idea was to encourage the cultivation/use/productivity of the land—and if the original / true property owner does not and YOU do, then you (the trespasser) should be awarded the land after 18 years of open and continual use (despite the fact that the land is someone else's)... some citizens have called this law "outdated" or "archaic"... back in the day, there may have been a good reason to do this.

In this day and age, however, when simply owning property is seen as a good thing—an investment that gains value over time—the whole idea of having to put it to use or be fearful it could be taken from you by someone else who will, is a foreign, if not truly outdated concept that most of the general public would disagree with...

As it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, after July 1 of this year, HB-1148 will do 3 main things:

1. When satisfying the elements of a claim for adverse possession, it will RAISE THE BURDEN OF PROOF for the person asserting the adverse possession claim from a preponderance of the evidence to the higher clear and convincing standard... (I understand this higher standard was in place for many decades prior to a change in 1972... our bill just goes back to the higher standard...)

2. HB-1148 adds as an additional element in an adverse possession case, the requirement that the claimant (the adverse possessor) had a 'GOOD FAITH BELIEF' that they were the actual owner of the property... this is the most important change to law we are making, and should go a long way towards reducing the likelihood another Kirlin case will be repeated... 5 other states have a 'good faith' standard... Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Oregon, and Louisiana.

3. Finally, HB-1148 ALLOWS, but doesn't require, THE COURT TO AWARD COMPENSATION / DAMAGES to the losing party / owner of record for the loss of the property... the compensation may include a mixture of a percentage of the actual assessed value of the property lost as well as back taxes paid on the property...

The bill passed out of Senate Judiciary yesterday with unanimous support...I am hopeful it will have broad support in the full senate as well...

It looks to me like the legislature is doing the right thing in this case.

Wafa Sultan Defends Liberty

March 17, 2008

Along with (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/dishonor-killings.html) Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan is among the most courageous people in the world. As Rule of Reason (http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/03/wafa-sultan-strikes-again.htm) pointed out, Sultan recently debated an Egyptian about religion. The (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1704.htm) video and (http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1704.htm) transcript are available. Sultan said:

All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death. The Danish cartoons have managed to break down the first brick in the wall of that prison, and to open up a window, through which the sunrays enter, after a lengthy darkness. The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light, and consequently, it will draw them in a better light. The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true. The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally.

The moderator of the television show said, "How come freedom of expression in the West is sacred only when it comes to degrading the Muslims? Are they allowed to talk about the Holocaust? Are they allowed to talk about Christianity? That is the question. Cinemas were burned down in the West when they talked about Christ."

There is no legitimate comparison of free speech between the Muslim world and the West. The Muslim world routinely practices censorship and threatens to murder people for their speech. The West—and especially the United States—upholds free speech in almost every case. (The few exceptions should be eliminated.) The comment about cinemas being burned down is a fabrication, as Sultan pointed out.

Meanwhile, (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338277,00.html) in Iran...

Iran's Culture Ministry on Sunday announced the closure of nine cinema and lifestyle magazines for publishing pictures and stories about the life of "corrupt" foreign film stars and promoting "superstitions."

The Press Supervisory Board, a body controlled by hard-liners, also sent warning notes to 13 other publications and magazines on "observing the provisions of the press law," the ministry said on its Web site. ...

The ministry said it shut them down for "using photos of artists, especially foreign corrupt film stars, as instruments (to arouse desire), publishing details about their decadent private lives, propagating medicines without authorization, promoting superstitions."

That's rich: Islamic fascists imposing censorship to prevent the promotion of superstitions!

While there are some Americans who wish to impose censorship in the U.S. (who are in cases regarding alleged obscenity primarily motivated by religious beliefs), most Americans (including religious ones) are dedicated to the rights of free speech. While much of the Muslim world called for the murder of the Danish cartoonists, most of America stood up for free speech. To give just one example, the Rocky Mountain News published not only one of the Danish cartoons but various other cartoons offensive to various groups, as explained in an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/feb/11/a-world-of-controversy/) editorial and an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/feb/18/btempleb-readers-thank-news-for-cartoons/) article by the publisher, John Temple. Temple wrote:

I thought you might be interested in seeing what readers said, given that the Rocky Mountain News is one of the few American newspapers to expose its readers to any of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that are blamed for rioting across the Muslim world.

"Thank you," was the consistent message.

Indeed, the News, and people like Sultan, deserve our thanks for defending freedom of speech.

Comment by Burgess Laughlin: "The moderator of the television show said, 'How come freedom of expression in the West is sacred only when it comes to degrading the Muslims? Are they allowed to talk about the Holocaust?'" If news reports are correct, the moderator is right to bring up this example. According to reports I have seen, some European countries have criminalized certain kinds of comments about the Holocaust. That is censorship plain and simple. In making comparisons, it is important to clearly distinguish exactly what elements are being compared. Are we comparing ideal to ideal or actual to actual? A particular culture may generally uphold an ideal but not always practice it. Western Civilization, considered as an "abstract particular," upholds freedom of speech. According to second-hand reports I've read, Islam, considered as an "abstract particular," attacks freedom of speech. In actuality, what passes for Western Civilization does impose censorship at times. Likewise, even predominantly Islamic cultures do permit vacuoles of free speech--in certain circumstances, by certain people, and for limited times. What matters most is the ideal, because it is ideals--as a species of ideas--that move history.

Comment: Mr. Laughlin is right. Germany, most obviously, punishes any denial or grave relativization of the Holocaust with imprisonment. This has two aspects. First, it is part of a broader government policy on Germany's history which focuses very much on the Third Reich and especially on the Holocaust as the unique and uncomparable sin of the German people, and from there on derives an eternal collective guilt that is an important part of the ideological foundation of the present German republic. Second, this curtailment of free speech is embedded in a paragraph in the German crimincal code called "Volksverhetzung" (i.e. inciting the people to hatred) by means of which any kind of opinion that allegedly incites the populace to hatred and violence and disturbs the social peace can be prosecuted by the government. It usually is used when someone utters some stupid (or not so stupid) remark against some minority or other, and most frequently in connection with utterances about the Third Reich and the Holocaust.

Israel and the Law

March 17, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080317/OPINION/894071471) was published on March 17 by Grand Junction's Free Press. Read also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/linns-trip-to-israel-part-i.html) Part I from March 3.

Israel trip sheds light on law under terror

by Linn and Ari Armstrong
March 17, 2008

This article, written from Linn's perspective, is the second in a series based on Linn's February trip to Israel as part of the Ultimate Counter Terrorism Mission.

During my trip to Israel I observed the nation's concern with law, the legality of its military operations, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.

One of the organizations that has had success countering terrorism is the Shurat HaDin Israel Law center (http://www.israellawcenter.org/) (IsraelLawCenter.org), a non-profit, independent body unaffiliated with the Israeli government or any political party. One main function of Shurat HaDin is to take the perpetrators and supporters of Islamic terror to court to strip them of their resources in order to compensate victims.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, sometimes known as the "warrior for justice" (and who was very pregnant when I met her) directs the organization. Darshan-Leitner has assisted hundreds of Israeli terror victims in filing civil suits against Palestinian terrorist groups and their financial patrons. She said, "My clients are innocent people who were made to suffer, and this is the only way they have to fight back."

Darshan-Leitner also represents Palestinian clients, usually when they are accused of collaborating with Israel. She applied to the Palestinian Minister of Justice for permission to represent some of these clients in West Bank courts. She said in Striking Back magazine that she heard back only after the suspects had been convicted and executed.

One of the cases that Darshan-Leitner passionately related involved three Israeli army reservists who took a wrong turn and an ended up in the city of Ramallah. The three reservists went to a police station for help. The station was surrounded, and the police did nothing to protect the men. The reservists were dragged out and hanged by the mob. Shurat HaDin filed a lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority for about $15 million.

Another interesting individual was Brigadier General Shaul Gordon, who is currently providing legal advice on matters of administration and operation for the Israeli Police. Gordon also spent over fifteen years in the army, had a private law practice for five years, and is the former Chief Justice of the military Court of Appeals for Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip. As a judge in 2002, Gordon heard over 3,500 administrative detention cases involving suspected terrorists.

Israel has a legal system for those who commit or are suspected of committing terrorist acts. Israel faces difficult questions regarding the legal treatment of suspected terrorists: how does a country advance a rights-respecting democracy and at the same time protect itself from terrorists seeking to destroy it and its institutions?

The conflicts in the Middle East can seem intractable, as Gordon indicated in a story. Leonid Brezhnev, Jimmy Carter, and Menachem Begin are all standing before God, and God tells them that they can each ask one question. Brezhnev asks if he will see the end of Communism. God answers, "Yes my son, you will, but not in your administration." Carter asks if he will see the end of the cold war. God answers, "Yes, my son, you will, but not in your administration." Begin asks if he will see the end of the Arab-Israel conflict. God answers, "Yes, my son, you will." But then God hesitates and adds, "But not in my administration."

The military base Machane Ofer sits ten minutes from Jerusalem. This is the base where terrorist detainees are taken and security trials of Hamas terrorists are held. Judge Menachm Liberman took time out of busy schedule to show us around the military courts and brief us about a pending a trial of a suspected terrorist.

Haim Ben-Ami briefed us about the interrogation tactics of the Shabak, or General Security Service. Ben-Ami, an intense figure, discussed the techniques, methods, strategies, and legal challenges to law enforcement and intelligence forces' struggle to lawfully extract information about terrorist activities.

Ben-Ami began by noting that he himself had been the victim of a terrorist attack; a hand grenade was thrown into a vehicle in which he was riding. He then tapped a table with his artificial leg. He said, "You need to balance the human rights of a terrorist versus the human rights of the twenty or thirty victims." He also noted that, in fighting terrorism, one must separate how one deals with criminals and terrorists.

Some American critics of Israel deride the tiny nation for taking the steps it does to preserve itself and its people in a region where many of Israel's neighbors would as soon see the nation utterly destroyed. Most Americans do not know friends and family members who have been blown up by terrorist bombs. Yet Americans should remember the destructive force of terrorism the next time the U.S. government is tempted to coddle state sponsors of terror in the Middle East.

Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Prostitution Article Now Online

March 17, 2008

My article in the Rocky Mountain News arguing that prostitution should be legal is (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/) now available online. I've also written some (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/legal-prostitution-article-in-rocky.html) additional notes about the subject. Also, in 2001 (during my libertarian days), I reviewed a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2001/11/prostitution.html) debate on the matter featuring Wendy McElroy.

Scripture and the Death Penalty

March 18, 2008

A recent exchange of letters in the Rocky Mountain News illustrates the utter futility of arguing for or against any narrow political policy based on scripture, especially in criticism of some standard or wide-spread Christian view. While it can be interesting to look at whether Christians follow the text of the Bible as an afterthought or minor polemical point, scripture can never be the center of discussion.

On March 4, Roger Balmer (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/04/defying-scripture/) argued:

With regard to the death penalty, what is there about the following verses from the Bible that "Christian" America doesn't seem to understand: "Thou shalt not kill." "Recompense to no man evil for evil." "Love your enemy." "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath." "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

Of course, this was unpersuasive to a Christian who advocates the death penalty. On March 17, the Reverend Douglas Van Dorn (http://65.71.233.194/arbca/pdf/ARBCA_Directory.PDF) (apparently of the Reformed Baptist Church) (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/17/or-perhaps-adhering-to-scripture/) replied:

With regard to picking and choosing some verses from the Bible over
others instead of taking "the whole council of God" together, what is there about these other verses that some Christians don't seem to understand: "Whoever does [insert any number of sins] shall be put to death." "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." "They were given authority to kill with the sword."

There are only two answers. Either people intentionally create another God besides the one who wrote the whole Bible, or they ignorantly conflate laws that respect individuals ("Love your enemy," "Thou shalt not murder") with the lex talionis ("an eye for an eye") which respects the state, thereby inventing contradiction where none in fact exists. In the process, they deny the words of the New Testament that the one in authority "is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:4).

So let us only briefly note the (rather large) problem that Van Dorn's phrase, "insert any number of sins," includes "sins" such as adultery, homosexuality, and dishonoring one's parents. If Van Dorn does not promote the death penalty for those cases, then he has fallen into the same alleged error of which he accuses Balmer. But that, as I have suggested, is irrelevant to whether the death penalty should remain in force. (My point here is not to argue for or against the death penalty, but merely to note that scripture cannot and should not answer the question as a political matter.)

To take another example, I ran a quick Google search of "bible abortion." Of the top four hits, two pages—(http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm) one and (http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/prolife.html) two—claim that the Bible prohibits abortion. The others—(http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm) one and (http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php) two—claim that the Bible does not prohibit abortion.

As Sam Harris notes, in many cases the Bible says whatever its readers think it says. (On other matters, such as the exhortation to kill homosexuals, Biblical passages seem rather clear, though few readers of such passages take them seriously.)

But it simply does not matter what the Bible says—about the death penalty, abortion, or anything else—we do not and should not live in a theocracy, and political policy ought not have any basis whatsoever in religious teachings. I don't care if the Bible said, "The United States of America, and every state thereof, shall institute the death penalty for crimes of premeditated murder between the years 1800 and 2100 of the Common Era, and this passage shall take precedence over every other passage of scripture;" that would not be a legitimate reason to maintain (or repeal) the death penalty.

Any legitimate political policy rests on a secular foundation. While some secular reasons might have something in common with various religious beliefs, if the policy is not (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/religious-foundation-for-law.html) separable from religious doctrine, it is not legitimate.

Everwood

March 18, 2008

Based on a friend's recommendation, my wife and I rented a disk from the first season of the television serious Everwood, and we liked it so much we purchased the set. The title is based on the name of the fictitious Colorado town where the story develops. The premise is that a talented New York doctor—among the finest brain surgeons in the world—loses his wife and, in his grief, resettles his family (he has a young daughter and teenage boy) in Everwood, a town in the mountains a tolerable drive away from Denver.

The central character of the show, Dr. Andrew Brown, portrayed by a wonderful Treat Williams, is a glowing figure. Obviously he suffers from the loss of his wife, and he fights with his son and faces various other problems. But he reveals magnificent force of character and an underlying benevolence. The writing of the show is both sweet and moving, despite a few oblique religious themes and the fact that Brown works without compensation for reasons that are not entirely convincing.

The show treads lightly into politics, and it does so with particular poignancy in the twelfth episode of the first season. When an elderly florist dies, the town discovers that she was growing marijuana in the back room. A debate about medical marijuana erupts. Even though the setting of the debate is artificial—the town government holds a public meeting to decide the fate of the florist's marijuana, which is not how things work in real-world Colorado—the discussion is thoughtful and rounded. Ultimately the show leans toward toleration. Yet none of this seems like a political sermon; it is part of a thoughtful story that contains another significant plot development. In the funniest line of the show, a daughter tells her father (something like), "I thought marijuana was only supposed to make you paranoid after you smoke it."

But I don't wish to scare away opponents of medical marijuana; I love the show even though it presents some ideas with which I disagree, and I think you will enjoy it, too.

Obama's 'Perfect Union' Speech

March 19, 2008

Given a political problem that began with the words of Barack Obama's pastor, Obama's (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBbKG) "More Perfect Union" speech of March 18 had little to do with religion. The troubling comments of Jeremiah Wright, some of which I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/03/wright-vs-hagee-pick-your-crazy.html) reviewed, were typical of the far left, but they had nothing to do with religion. Yet the comments that Obama did make about religion are worth a look.

For what it's worth, I thought Obama's speech was masterful. The people still mad about his affiliation with Wright never would have voted for Obama, anyway.

I was surprised to hear Obama make such a strong statement regarding the motives of terrorism in the Middle East:

[Wright's view wrongly] sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

After describing where Wright went wrong, Obama then discusses what he appreciates about the man:

[Wright] is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth—by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Obviously if people want to voluntarily care for the sick, the poor, and people with disease, they are free to do so. But Obama believes that these Christian policies should be imposed through political force. He named four main policy issues in the speech: health care, education, jobs, and the war. His policies are typical of the left; he wants to expand federal political control of health care, education, and employment, even though existing political controls are the cause of problems in those areas. (Obama's plan to socialize medicine would disproportionately harm the very people he claims to chamption.) For decades the left has been promoting what is essentially a secularized and coercive version of the Christian ethos. The only difference with Obama is that he is explicit about the religious connection.

Nevertheless, the policies that Obama promotes, however much they violate individual rights and economic liberty, remain separable from religion. That's more than can be said for some of the policies that John McCain (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/john-mccain-on-religion.html) endorses.

Comment by Burgess Laughlin: Obama: "[Wright] is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith [... in ... ] a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth—by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services. . ." AA: "... Obama believes that these Christian policies should be imposed through political force. ... he is explicit about the religious connection. Nevertheless, the policies that Obama promotes, however much they violate individual rights ... remain separable from religion. That's more than can be said for some of the policies that John McCain endorses." Because of my interest in gaining a method for choosing candidates, I want to make sure I understand your criterion for selecting (or not selecting) a candidate. Are you saying that if one religious candidate supports political positions (e.g., welfare) shared by the secular left, you might vote for him, but if a religious candidate supports positions (e.g., teaching "intelligent design" in governmental schools) uniquely held by some religious people, you would oppose him?

Comment by Ari: This post was not intended to offer a case for selecting one candidate over another. However, last month I did offer some (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/thoughts-on-super-tuesday.html) reasons for selecting Obama over McCain, even though neither choice is a good one.

Comment by Burgess Laughlin: I only now realize that your Feb. 1, 2008 article on Obama's view of faith-based welfare also provides helpful information. Tentatively I have come to the conclusion, suggested in my first post, that A is preferable to B: A. A candidate agrees with all the principles of Christianity (for example) and wants to impose the socially appropriate ones (shared by the Left) onto society, but rejects any financial or institutional ties to any particular religion. B. A candidate agrees with all the principles of Christianity (for example) and wants to impose them all (whether ontological, epistemological, ethical, or political) on society as specifically religious doctrines--e.g., teaching Intelligent Design in governmental schools because the Judaeo-Christian Bible (for example) says that is the way to go. The difference is between (1) someone who wants to impose bad ideas which might be supported philosophically, and (2) someone who wants to impose bad ideas which can only be supported theologically. The choice is ugly but meaningful. Thanks for the opportunity to begin to clarify these issues.

Comment by Ari: Laughlin's last comments contain a few problems. Obama's policies are not "socially appropriate," nor are any policies that would violate individual rights. Yet there is an important distinction between policies that can arise from a secular base (e.g., the abolition of slavery, a good policy, or forced wealth redistribution, a bad one) versus policies that can only arise from a religious base (e.g., the prohibition of abortion or tax-funded teaching of creationism). It is not a requirement of the separation of church and state that a candidate "rejects any financial or institutional ties to any particular religion." Instead, a candidate must pledge not to institute any religion or religious doctrine through political force. To violate the separation of church and state, a candidate need not seek to enforce "all the principles of Christianity" in politics, but to impose some onerous religious doctrine or doctrines through political force. Yet we cannot merely look at candidates A and B in a vacuum. We must consider social trends, party politics, and other matters.

Comment by Gideon: You're the first site I've seen to point out that Obama's reference "radical Islam" is really quite unusual (and in a way, impressive), particularly for someone on the left. The speech was a masterful presentation of the case for everyone joining together to support government programs. I'm wondering what its long term impact will be.

NYT on McCain: Forest, Anyone?

March 20, 2008

The New York Times is after John McCain again

NYT on McCain: Forest, Anyone?

March 20, 2008

The New York Times is after John McCain (again). Michael Cooper writes in his March 19 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19mccain.html) story:

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan—in a news conference and in a radio interview—that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group. ...

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.

"I'm sorry," Mr. McCain said, "the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda."

So the chip of bark is that McCain made a minor misstatement about which terrorists Iran is training in Iraq.

But, while the Times has consumed forests of newsprint through its years, neither that paper nor either of the Democrats running for president seem prepared even to glance at this forest:

"...Iran... has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq..."

How exactly does that qualify as anything other than an act of war by Iran against the United States?

Meanwhile, McCain has glanced at the forest and smelled the smoke from the fire raging within it. Unfortunately, I suspect that, if elected president, his response would be either to busily pump up his squirt gun—or to try to douse the flames with American bodies. Neither approach is sane, but there is (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=15153) another alternative.

Comment by Gideon: First of all Shiite Iran has been quite comfortable in openly supporting Sunni Hamas and Sunni Palestinian Islamic Jihad for some time. In addition, it also has been known, since it is mentioned in the 9/11 commission report that Iran has had numerous contacts and interactions with Al-Qaeda, going back to the 90s, as well as joint training at Hezbolla's Lebanon camps.
In terms of Iraq two recent reports, one from AEI, one by the (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.733/pub_detail.asp) Claremont Institute's Thomas Jocelyn show the extent of Iranianian involvement in Iraq and it is not limited to Shiites. This is just another in a series of acts of war against the United States. A proper President would have responded long ago.

Prostitution: Reply to Susan Williams

March 20, 2008

Susan Williams should have read my March 15 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/) Speakout ("Should prostitution be legal?") prior to criticizing it in her March 20 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/20/degradation-is-why-prostitution-illegal/) letter ("Degradation is why prostitution illegal"). Rather than consider my arguments and respond to them, Williams insulted both me and my wife by wondering "if... Ari Armstrong thinks he is purchasing his wife's favors when he pays for groceries or dinner out." Williams's insinuation about our marriage is vicious and dishonest.

In the Speakout, I argued that prostitution is a moral vice, along with infidelity and indiscriminate sex. Furthermore, I wrote, "[S]ex properly involves a connection of consciousness as well as bodies between two people who genuinely admire one another. Purely physical sex undermines the distinctly human dimension of it..." Williams ignored all of this.

Williams instead misrepresented my observation that paying indirectly for sex via expensive dinners or trips is legal, while paying directly for sex is a crime. I made this point in the context of discussing various other vices, such as infidelity, that are legal. My point was that, while we should condemn and discourage vices involving consensual behavior, we ought not criminalize them. For example, while Eliot Spitzer fully deserved the public censure he got, neither he nor the prostitutes he hired deserve to go to prison.

Williams wrote, "The reason we don't legalize prostitution in the United States is that it is wrong and degrading to buy and sell women..." I quite agree that it is wrong and degrading to hire prostitutes, and I argued as much in my Speakout. However, prostitution is not akin to slavery, as Williams suggests. Prostitutes, along with those who hire them, agree to the arrangement. (I noted in the Speakout that "involuntary prostitution and sexual abuse of children must be outlawed.")

Williams asked how I would react if my (hypothetical) daughter decided to take up prostitution. I would react the same way I would if she decided to take up indiscriminate sex, infidelity, or any other serious vice. If she were a minor (for whom prostitution would properly remain illegal), I would prevent it. If she were an adult, I would passionately plead with her to make wiser choices.

I've answered Williams's question; now it is only fair that she answer mine. Does Williams think that people should be sent to prison for infidelity or indiscriminate sex? If not, doesn't she still grant that those things are "wrong and degrading?" How can she justify criminalizing some vices but not others? Finally, assuming that there are any vices that Williams thinks should remain legal, would she appreciate it if I insinuated that she therefore participates in those vices?

* * *

I have asked that the Rocky Mountain News publish the first three paragraphs of the reply above.

While the point is a minor one, I did find it humorous that Williams assumed that I'm the one buying groceries and dinner out. My wife makes way more money than I do.

My previous (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/legal-prostitution-article-in-rocky.html) notes on the matter are also available.

Finally, I do agree with Williams's statement, "Men who think that all exchanges between them and women are negotiations for the price of sex are doomed to loneliness in the midst of company," though there is a sense in which the "price of sex" is properly one's character. And Williams's paragraph about Spitzer makes a good point.

Comment by Severin: I think I have to disagree with one point here. It may be wrong to buy and sell women if they are not consenting, but I do not believe that there is anything wrong with a woman consenting to sex for any reason they chose (even money). Sex is not always done for love and I believe that is okay. Another point I think should be made is that prostitutes are often performing sexual acts that are not actually sex, then it becomes even less clear where the moral division should be. For instance if a woman touches a man's penis with her hands for money, is that as "wrong and degrading" to the woman as if she had sex with the man? It seems odd to me that some women still cannot fathom the idea that other women might actually want to be prostitutes and in fact prefer this option to the other options available to them.

Comment by Ari: People's preferences are not the standard of morality. And the fact that prostitution is consensual does not make it moral. To take another example, people who choose to sit around shooting up heroin day after day are acting immorally. In criminal law, the initiation of force (and fraud) should be banned, and otherwise consenting adults should be left free to make their own decisions. But what is properly legal is in many cases contrary to what is moral.

Comment by Ari, August 11, 2025: I am no longer so moralistic about prostitution. Generally, it's bad if women need to become prostitutes to avoid economic destitution, but that's hardly the fault of the prostitutes. I think most people do better by working in some other field. And obviously prostitution can be extremely degrading. Still, in some contexts I think paid sex work probably is morally fine. The 2012 film The Sessions is about a paralyzed man who hires a sex "therapist" to have sex with him, and I don't see anything wrong with that for either party.

Faith Undermines Reason

March 21, 2008

On March 20, two men made very different remarks about the relationship between faith and reason.

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339950,00.html) For Father Jonathan Morris, "[H]uman reason [is] the great cultural meeting point for people of every race and creed. ... [Pope] Benedict sees rationality as the only suitable launching pad of all true faith..."

Yet, if it is reason that makes possible mutual understanding, what does faith contribute? Historically, while faith has brought together many people within various regions, as in the Egyptian Nile or the Christian Roman Empire, faith has also inspired the oppression and slaughter of internal dissenters, bloody wars between people of different faiths, and external conquest in the service of faith.

Every person has the capacity to reason, and reality is the final arbiter of what is reasonable. Reason means invoking arguments and evidence to establish what is true in reality. Faith, on the other hand, depends on alleged divine revelation and/or some authority. Men of reason may resolve conflicts by reference to a common standard—reality—while men of faith have no such "meeting point."

In an (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7432) article titled "The Easter Masquerade," Keith Lockitch notes the irony of the dating of Easter, accomplished through precise scientific means, and the subsequent persecution of men of science by the church. Lockitch notes the "long history of the hostility of faith towards reason—which continues to this day." He continues:

Violent clashes between the two are not only possible but unavoidable, and the notion that religion can coexist on friendly terms with science and reason is false. ...

Religion's alleged harmony with science is a fraudulent masquerade, extending only insofar as religious dogmas are not called into question. True defenders of science must be committed to reason as an absolute principle—following facts wherever they lead and bowing to no authorities but logic and reality. And they must understand that the servile obedience demanded by faith is wholly incompatible with science—and with the rational thinking on which all human progress and prosperity depends.

The relationship of faith to reason is wholly a parasitical one. Faith cannot survive without some practice of reason, else the faithful would soon die out, yet reason succeeds to the extent that it is freed from faith.

Comment by Neil Parille: Other than the Galileo incident and a couple other things, I'm not convinced that religion has been all that hostile to science. (And from what little I've read, I the Galileo affair is a bit more complicated than commonly described.) I read an author who pointed out that most of the major branches of science were founded by religious believers. And Newton was big into alchemy and bible prophecy. Einstein was a Kantian. Some of the most important scientists of the 19th century such as Kelvin, Maxwell and Faraday were believers. With the decline of religion, most scientists today probably aren't. So if atheists, Kantians, Christians, alchemists and other people can do good science, then all this is just a tempest in a tea pot. Copernicus was a priest and dedicated his book to the pope and had an introduction written by a Lutheran theologian. He studied in Italy under Platonist mathematicians. Maybe a little bit of "eclecticism" is good for science.

Comment by Ari: While Christian apologists rationalize the church's persecution of Galileo, they rarely mention the church's murder of Giordano Bruno. The argument, "various scientists were religious; therefore, faith inspires science," is a bad one. Science succeeded, not when faith was the overwhelming social force, but only after Aristotle returned to cultural influence. People can do and believe many wrong things and still produce good work in other areas. People can be great compartmentalizers. The fact remains that religious scientists succeeded to the extent that they were not religious in their methodology.

Comment by Jim May: There is a rhetorical question that Ayn Rand once asked en route to some other point, but which I see as encapsulating the simple and inescapable proof that reason does not need faith. That question was: "Is it rational to use reason?" Think about it. At every juncture where one faces the choice of being rational or not, that choice is made either rationally—or not. Now, what makes *that* choice? And on and on. Eventually you have to stop—either reason or unreason is the *ultimate* principle by which you choose. Now—if it *is* rational to use reason, when is it ever irrational to use reason? Never. Contrary to Kant, there is *never* a point where it would be "irrational" to use reason. In other words, for the truly rational man, there is never a reason to abandon reason. Now take the alternative: faith/unreason/arbitrary-made-up BS (synonyms all). You can do whatever you want when you are being irrational—including things that happen to be rational. You can take *anything* on faith, including any aspect of science or reasoned thinking you want. Where reason only leads to reason, faith can lead to anything. A man of faith can cross that line all he wants. This remains true even for the man of faith who follows the rational line 99.9% of the time. THIS is why science and other products of reason have come to us historically through men of faith. To the extent that they *were* men of faith, their role in bringing us the ideas of Aristotle is that of a thief who pilfers priceless works of art just before the museum is destroyed. Hundreds of years later, the heirs of the thieves present us with what would otherwise have been lost. We can credit the thieves for their role in preserving these treasures, but the fact remains that they did not create them, and never could. There is also the fact that reality tends to select for those who acknowledge it, so compartmentalizers who are willing to pay reason its due when it suits them, will reap the benefits thereof—a definite competitive advantage over followers of more consistently irrational creeds. The basic premise underlying ALL arguments in favor of "coexistence" between reason and faith is the premise that it can sometimes NOT be rational to use reason—a plain contradiction. You cannot get to faith without willfully denying reason.

National Health Care Systems

March 21, 2008

The Cato Institute has released Michael Tanner's March 18 (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272) Policy Analysis titled, "The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World." The summary states:

...[N]early all health care systems worldwide are wrestling with problems of rising costs and lack of access to care. There is no single international model for national health care, of course. Countries vary dramatically in the degree of central control, regulation, and cost sharing they impose, and in the role of private insurance. Still, overall trends from national health care systems around the world suggest the following:

* Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.

* Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.

* In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.

* Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control. ...

After Tanner discusses meaningful and bogus ways to compare health care across nations, he takes a detailed look at specific countries, including France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. While I have not yet read the entire report, it promises to provide crucial information for Americans trying to grapple with existing problems with U.S. health care.

'A Drug-Using Atheist'

March 22, 2008

Christian columnist and professor Mike Adams recently (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/03/17/the_audacity_of_dope) admitted past drug use and commented on Obama's past drug use:

In addition to smoking marijuana—sometimes laced with substances like PCP—for a number of years, I also experimented with drugs like hashish, powdered cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamines (including ecstasy). I regret my decision to use illegal drugs in my youth and I'm really sorry. Now that my past drug use is out of the way, let's move on to Barack Obama.

I may surprise a number of people by saying that I don't think Obama's past drug use—including the use of powdered cocaine—in any way disqualifies him from being President. I know I've had no trouble refraining from illegal drug use since I joined a Christian church many years ago.

I had not heard about Obama's drug use, but an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html) confirms it:

Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself [in Dreams From My Father]: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind." ... Through his book, Obama has become the first potential presidential contender to admit trying cocaine.

I agree with Adams that Obama's past drug use does not disqualify him for the presidency (and Republicans can hardly argue the point, given the man they put into office). However, Adams suggests that the reason we can trust Obama not to return to drug use is that he converted to Christianity—which is ridiculous. Many Christians abuse drugs, including alcohol, while many atheists do not. What's important is for somebody to build a better moral character. I personally know people who, in that process, became religious, but that's because they saw religion as the only alternative to the moral subjectivism that had troubled them. I also personally know people who, as they overcame drug abuse, either remained atheists or moved away from religion and toward a secular morality. (I particularly recommend Craig Biddle's Loving Life and Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics for their discussions of rational virtues.)

I started out as a Christian; then I became an atheist who abused drugs (particularly alcohol, but a few times other drugs). Finally I grew up, took a hard look at my past mistakes, and started to work hard to improve my character. (I'm still working out a few details.)

I know I've had no trouble refraining from drug abuse since I rejected first the Christian church and then a pragmatic subjectivism many years ago.

McCain's War on Liberty

March 22, 2008

Yaron Brook has (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/03/19/yaron-campaign-finance-oped-cx_ybr_0321yaron.html) written the single best critique of campaign censorship (for that's what it is) that I've read. Writing for Forbes, Brook argues that laws such as McCain-Feingold "subject political speech to the corrupting influence of government control."

Brook explains why campaign censorship is harmful; why it shuts out true outsider candidates. But what Brook brings home especially powerfully is the end-game of campaign censorship: campaigns funded—and thus controlled—exclusively by the political powerful:

[C]ampaign finance advocates have not been appeased by McCain-Feingold, and are calling for complete public financing of political elections. Under such a system, candidates would no longer have to financially earn the platform from which they speak; instead, the government would furnish candidates with your tax dollars. Of course, not every potential candidate could receive public funding under such a system: Only "serious" candidates would.

Who decides which candidate is serious? Those presently holding government power. There is no surer way to create a political aristocracy in America.

John McCain betrayed our First Amendment liberties. He should immediately and strongly advocate legislation to repeal his abominable law. I imagine that will happen around the same time that Barack Obama endorses liberty in medicine.

Coca-Cola Crucifixions

March 23, 2008

Invesco Field at Mile High. Coors Field. I can handle that. But Coca-Cola Crucifixions? That's going a bit far. Yet, according to the Telegraph, Coca-Cola and Smart Telecommunications are sponsoring a festival in the Philippines in which people reenact the crucifixion of Jesus, in some cases using real nails. The March 20 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/weaster219.xml) article by Thomas Bell carries the absurdly understated title: "Easter warning: crucifixion is bad for you."

The link also shows a Reuters photo of a man hanging from a cross with nails through his hands. Well, he's cheating a bit, because his arms are tied to the crossbeam with ropes, and the nails are pounded through his palms. As I learned in my childhood church, the nails actually went through the wrists, so that they didn't tear through the flesh between the bones in the palms. (You wouldn't want people falling off their crosses!) And part of the agony of crucifixion is that it's hard to breath while hanging from the wrists, so you have to keep lifting yourself up by the nails in your wrists, until you become too exhausted to do so and suffocate to death. The man shown in the photo doesn't look especially comfortable, but the ropes are denying him his opportunity to fully share in the misery of Christ. But, then, these people don't imagine that they can come back to life after decomposing in a tomb for three days, so they get to come down off their crosses before doing too much physical damage to themselves. (While I learned little in my church about, for instance, the Christian takeover of Roman government, I learned quite a lot about crucifixions.)

Anyway, the article reports:

Many people in the Philippines consider crucifixion and self flagellation good for the soul, but it is bad for your health according to new government advice for penitents.

"We are not trying to go against the Lenten tradition here because whipping has somewhat already become some form of 'atonement for sins' for some of us," Health Secretary Francisco Duque the 3rd said.

"Getting deep cut wounds during whippings or lashings is inevitable and being so exposed during the course of the penitence, with all the heat and dust blowing in the wind, welcomes all sorts of infections and bacteria like tetanus," he explained.

Re-enactments of the Passion of Christ are common in many parts of the mostly Roman Catholic Philippines but frowned upon by the church authorities.

In San Fernando City 23 people, including two women, have signed up to re-enact the crucifixion at three "improvised Golgothas" around town. Four of them will use real nails.

The city government's website trumpets the preparations.

"The City Health Office (CHO) autoclaved all the nails to be used and will administer anti-tetanus vaccine to all the 'Cristos' to ensure their protection from possible infection," it points out. City officials will conduct an inspection of the Golgothas on Thursday. ... [Credit for link: (http://www.geekpress.com/) Paul Hsieh]

Doesn't this juxtaposition of tatanus shots, made possible by germ theory and medical science, alongside ritualistic self-torture, strike anyone as, you know, odd?

Thankfully, here in Denver, (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/22/stations-of-the-cross-a-part-of-our-culture/) reenactments of the crucifixion don't involve actual nails.

Voluntary crucifixion, while morally reprehensible, is similar to (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/prostitution-reply-to-susan-williams.html) prostitution in that it should be legal for consenting adults, however stupid and self-destructive it is. But for the local government to sanction the event is—I struggle to come up with an adequate adjective. Absurd? Ridiculous? Hysterical? Detestable? Horrific?

But maybe Coca-Cola can push the gig a bit further. Do you think sugar water can be subject to transubstantiation?

No Country for Good Movies

March 23, 2008

That's not true, of course; this country produces a few great movies. For instance, recently (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/waitress-stardust-best-movies-of-07.html) I praised the films Waitress and Stardust. And my wife and I watched Enchanted on DVD a couple of days ago and loved it. It's the story of a cartoon princess who falls into the real world and has to cope with New York while she waits for her prince to rescue her. It's Disney winking; what is superficially self-parody is actually a defense of fairy tales.

We also watched No Country for Old Men. Yes, the acting is great, though I thought Tommy Lee Jones's performance was the more memorable one. Artistically the film is amazing. But the story is terrible. The theme, if there is one, is that there are vicious, brutal people in the world who do vicious, brutal things—and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Yet that's one of the movies that got the Oscar attention. I guess it's just not culturally sophisticated to praise movies with a decent theme or a bright spirit.

I'll take the fairy tales.

Bush's Love

March 24, 2008

President Bush (http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_8664750#159464) said the following about the U.S. military in an address regarding Easter: "These brave individuals have lived out the words of the Gospel: 'Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'."

I have several responses to this.

1. Unlike the mythical Jesus, American soldiers do not arise from the dead.

2. The proper purpose of the U.S. military is not to give U.S. soldiers the opportunity to find heavenly bliss, but to achieve earthly security for the U.S. (including its soldiers).

3. To paraphrase Douglas MacArthur [actually, (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_S._Patton) George Patton], Bush shouldn't be trying to get U.S. soldiers to lay down their lives; he should be trying to get the other bastards (Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors) to lay down their lives.

4. The grain of truth to Bush's statement is that a moral individual can put his or her life at risk, if there's no better option, in order to save a loved one. And obviously soldiers put their lives at risk to protect their country, their loved ones, their way of life, and ultimately themselves. But the point of our nation's foreign policy should be to limit as much as possible the threats and harms to American citizens—including soldiers. Bush's statement amounts to a rationalization for needless deaths of American soldiers for goals other than national security. And no reference to mythology can hide Bush's gross immorality on that point.

Support in Prostitution Debate

March 24, 2008

I had little interest in debating the legality of prostitution, but then a well-known governor was brought down largely because of the issue, and I had an opportunity to discuss the case in a public forum. Since last (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/prostitution-reply-to-susan-williams.html) I wrote about the debate, several people have added some good comments in my defense. The quotes below are taken from the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/20/degradation-is-why-prostitution-illegal/) comments section following a letter that criticized me.

In her critical letter, Susan Williams wrote, "If Speakout writer Ari Armstrong thinks he is purchasing his wife's favors when he pays for groceries or dinner out, I'll bet my hat that is an opinion he has not yet shared with his wife." Brian Schwartz sensibly pointed out that Williams's statement is "a blatant personal attack on Mr. Armstrong's character."

Lin adds:

Susan Williams completely missed the point of Ari Armstrong's Speakout. He stated that prostitution is a vice, is degrading and should be morally condemned. On this they agree.

Instead of responding to his reasons for advocating that prostitution should be illegal, she viciously attacked him, making an ad hominen argument, and claimed that no one wants their daughters to be prostitutes. No similar statement about the sons.

The question remains: Why should a moral vice like prostitution be illegal when infidelity, indiscriminate sex, lying to achieve a personal advantage, and other vices are not illegal? To this question Ms. Williams has no answer except she doesn't like it. That's no answer.

She should re-read the Speakout, apologize to Mr. Armstrong for her attack, and give reasons if she has them. If not, she should keep quiet.

N. Provenso chimes in:

Susan Williams' letter is grossly unfair and personally insulting to Ari Armstrong. Armstrong clearly articulated the reasons why prostitution is vice but ought to be legal; in reply, Williams' shows she didn't even consider Armstrong's argument and instead chose to lob an inappropriate personal attack and straw man his position.

Should everything that is a vice but does not violate the rights of others be made illegal? Too much fast food? Smoking? Excessive alcohol consumption? Responding to an op-ed you haven't read?

Paul Hsieh writes, in part, "[O]one of the best virtues of America is the fact that we are able to distinguish between immoral acts that should *not* be illegal (such as prostitution) and immoral acts that *should* be illegal (such as rape or theft). The first does not involve any initiation of force or fraud, whereas the second does. And that makes all the difference."

Diana Hsieh adds, "Ms. Williams' letter exemplifies so much of what is wrong with political discourse in America today. It's bad enough that she grossly misrepresents Ari Armstrong's views by claiming that he endorses prostitution, but the personal attack on him (and his wife) should have qualified this letter for the circular file."

I appreciate this support.

To date, I have seen no reply to my original article that attempts to rebut my arguments.

There are a couple of points still worth pursuing. First, I offered only a hint of why prostitution is a vice; much more can be said on that matter. (I was not surprised that some libertarian critics took issue with my claim that prostitution is a vice.) Second, I didn't make clear in my original article what the laws should be regarding the trade of prostitution on "public" property. The ultimate answer is that the property should not be public. But, so long as it is, I think the law may properly prevent people from offering and soliciting prostitution there, for the same reasons that people cannot sell alcohol or guns on the street corners. But the main issue is whether prostitution should be legal among consenting adults on private property.

Fitna and Free Speech

March 25, 2008

I have not seen the film Fitna, because, when I tried to watch it on YouTube, YouTube offered only the following messages: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." "This account is suspended." So I don't know what the film contains other than what I've read in the media, aside from a few minutes I saw before the videos were pulled. I am not at this point able to judge either the film or its creator.

The AP (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8671351) reported that the film's creator, Geert Wilders, "lives under police protection due to death threats." The article adds, "A Dutch court will hear a complaint lodged by Muslim groups seeking to bar Wilders from releasing the film March 28, but there is no legal barrier preventing Wilders from releasing his film before then."

The article states, "Wilders has not described the 15-minute movie [which appeared to be much longer on YouTube before it was removed from YouTube], due to be released by March 31, in detail but has said it will underscore his view that Islam's holy book is 'fascist'."

So Wilders has claimed that the Quran is fascist, and therefore various defenders of the Quran, in order to disprove his claim, are trying to censor his film or murder him.

Gazette Reviews Income Calculator

March 25, 2008

I was quoted in a March 20 (http://www.gazette.com/articles/colorado_34416___article.html/family_self.html) story written by Perry Swanson for the Colorado Springs Gazette:

The financial picture is getting worse for Colorado's working poor families, according to a study issued Wednesday. ...

[T]he Colorado Center on Law and Policy... runs the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, a Denver-based think tank that sponsored the study, which examines the cost to get by in each of the state's 64 counties.

The study is called "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado 2008: A Family Needs Budget." ... The institute Wednesday also unveiled an online Colorado Self-Sufficiency Calculator...

Advocates say the calculator should guide policymakers as they ponder changes to tax laws and welfare programs. They recommend more support for programs designed to help people keep working, such as child-care assistance, food stamps and restoring Colorado's Earned Income Tax Credit. ...

Ari Armstrong, a Denver area resident who writes online about political issues, said the calculator—at least for him and his wife—is flawed.

"The calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing," Armstrong said. "We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less."

Armstrong took issue with other estimated monthly costs, including $358 for food and $453 for transportation—too high—and $317 in taxes—much lower than reality.

"I'm all for reducing taxes across the board, and especially for the poor," he said. "If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful. Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency."

Swanson did good job of reporting the basic story while including both perspectives.

You can view the (http://www.coloradoselfsufficiencystandardcalculator.org/ColoradoCalculator/home.aspx) calculator and the (http://www.cclponline.org/pubfiles/SelfSufficiency08_FinalProof.pdf) report yourself.

However, because Swanson did not include my comments about Social Security, my point about taxes is a bit unclear in the article. Following are my complete, unedited comments to Swanson:

There are two issues here. First, is the calculator legitimate? Second, what are appropriate measures for helping the poor?

Clearly, the "Self-Sufficiency Calculator" is misleading in that it does not actually measure the minimum income needed to live in self-sufficiency.

For example, the calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing. We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less.

The calculator suggests that we need to spend $358 per month on food. But we just made out our monthly budget, and, based on past expenses, we allocated $350 per month for food and household items combined. We could spend far less if we needed to. Last year, we spent a month eating a nutritious but economical diet, and we spent only $159 combined for food. Such a diet wouldn't be much fun over the long haul, but it is adequate.

The calculator also claims that we need to spend $453 per month on transportation. Nonsense. Running an economical car for modest commutes costs less than that. We in fact lived without a car for about two years and took the bus. An RTD monthly pass costs between $60 and $144.

One thing that the calculator underestimates is taxes. The calculator estimates $317 in taxes for us for a "self-sufficiency" income of $2,195, or about 15 percent of the total. But the real tax burden is much higher. All wages are subject to an employer-employee combined tax of about 15 percent off the top, and that doesn't even include any income taxes. Add to that property taxes (which renters pay indirectly), sales tax, and a multitude of minor taxes, and the total tax burden is substantial.

I'm all for reducing taxes across the board and especially for the poor. For example, exempting lower-income earners from the Social Security tax alone would be the equivalent of a pay increase of nearly 15 percent. If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful.

Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency. Moreover, forcing some people to transfer money to others violates rights and pushes out more effective, voluntary charity programs.

If the goal is self-sufficiency, we need more economic liberty and lower taxes, not more political programs backed up ultimately by physical force.

To Hell with Hell

March 26, 2008

According to one of Wes Morriston's friends, long ago Morriston insisted that Ghandi was burning in Hell and would continue to do so for all eternity. Now that Morriston has thought about the matter a bit more, he has concluded that, not only is Ghandi not burning in Hell, but nobody will suffer an eternity in Hell. Morriston presented his ideas February 21 at a (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/think.shtml) THINK! lecture sponsored by the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Morriston's complete lecture is (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/Morriston-Hell.mp3) available online in mp3 format; his (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/hell-talk.htm) lecture notes too are available.

I was worried when, early on, Morriston conceded that, if there is no life after death, the debate about Hell is rather pointless, but then asked us to suppose that there is life after death. Was this going to be a night of angels and pins? But Morriston's talk turned into a fascinating history lesson of various views of Hell, and an explanation of why many of those views contain faulty arguments.

Morriston argued, "If you believe in God, you probably shouldn't believe in Hell." His basic argument is that people, as finite beings, are incapable of doing something that would merit infinite punishment. If God is just, then he would not sentence any mortal being to an infinite punishment. (Morriston allowed for the possibility of a very long punishment.)

Morriston briefly reviewed the views of Hell by such [theists] as Dennis Prager [who is Jewish], Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, and Stephen Davis. He effectively responded to each argument in turn.

Edwards, for example, claimed about Hell, "The seeing of the calamities of others tends to heighten the sense of our own enjoyments. When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state..."

Morriston's most interesting arguments opposed the "free will defense for hell" of Lewis and Davis. The idea is that people "choose to be in hell" and "live their lives apart from God" (in Davis's words). Morriston offered three possibilities for why someone might make such a choice. First, a person might be ill-informed, but then how could the person reasonably be punished for that? Second, a person might be a "reasonable non-believer," which is different from "rejecting God." Again, why would this merit eternal punishment? Finally, a person might ruin his soul to the point where redemption is impossible. But then "why doesn't God fix their wills and restore their freedom?"

But doesn't Christian theology clearly maintain the existence of Hell? Morriston offered two responses. First, if the Bible really supports a belief in Hell (as eternal punishment), then something in the Bible is wrong. Second, it's not clear that the Bible does support a belief in Hell (as eternal punishment); Morriston pointed to an (http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm) essay by Keith DeRose on the matter.

However, while it's all very interesting to look at some of the details of Christian theology, the supernatural realm does not exist, and that remains the most important reason why one should not fear spending an eternity in Hell.

Smoking Ban (Still) Violates Rights

March 26, 2008

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8664974) reported on March 22:

A Colorado appeals court ruled last week that smoking by an actor on stage, while possibly important to character and theatrical message, is still banned by the state's 2-year-old indoor smoking law.

"The smoking ban was not intended to prevent actors from expressing emotion, setting a mood, illustrating a character trait, emphasizing a plot twist or making a political statement," a three-member panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals said in its unanimous ruling, upholding a lower court's verdict.

However, the court added, "smoking, by itself, is not sufficiently expressive to qualify for First Amendment protection."

The smoking ban does violate the right of free speech, but more fundamentally it violates the right to property. (See my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/04/smokeautrey.html) earlier comments about the smoking ban.)

Colorado's Bill of Rights (Article II, Section 3) states: "All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

If Colorado's courts took seriously Colorado's Constitution, they would reject the smoking ban before even getting to the federal Bill of Rights.

Prostitution: Reply to Shane Fookes

March 26, 2008

While Shane Fookes at least (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/26/at-issue-anti-prostitution-laws-needed/) offers an argument in favor of the prohibition of prostitution (unlike my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/prostitution-reply-to-susan-williams.html) last critic), that argument is weak. Moreover, Fookes fails to respond to my arguments in favor of legal prostitution, and he misrepresents some of my views.

Fookes argues that, in addition to protecting people's rights, government must "restrain evil." The problem is that Fookes never explains which evils the government ought to restrain, or why. Nor does he consider that, to forcibly "restrain evil" beyond the violation of rights, government must itself violate rights.

The evils that I think government should restrain are the evils of initiating force and fraud; that is, the evils of violating people's rights. Fookes thinks that the government should prohibit vices ("evils") that do not violate rights. He never says whether he believes that the government should ban all such vices, or just some of them, or how to decide.

Following are some vices that are currently legal (taken from my (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/) Speakout and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/legal-prostitution-article-in-rocky.html) additional commentary):

* Drinking too much alcohol.
* Smoking (in one's home and outside).
* Overeating.
* Engaging in indiscriminate sex among consenting adults.
* Cheating on one's spouse.
* Indirectly exchanging expensive dinners and trips for sex.
* Not working when one's children need the income.

If Fookes believes that the government must "restrain evil," then does he believe that the government should impose criminal penalties for each of the vices listed above? Many of the vices listed above can be at least as harmful as engaging in prostitution; for example, failing to support one's children can severely harm those children yet fall short of criminal abuse. Does Fookes believe that the police should arrest, and the courts should imprison, people for all of the vices listed above? If not, then why does Fookes believe that only some vices (such as prostitution) should carry criminal penalties? Until and unless Fookes can provide a plausible answer to this question, he has not made his case.

Fookes is wrong to conclude that the government should "restrain evil" beyond the violation of rights. The first problem is that even restraining actual vices tends to foster abusive government that invades our privacy and causes unintended social harms. (For example, the legal prohibition of prostitution results in more disease and more violence against prostitutes.) The second problem is that, while rights violations can be clearly defined, "evil" is the subject of vast disagreement. Many Americans believe that blasphemy, atheism, pornography, and homosexuality are evil. Other Americans believe that eating meat, wearing leather, and building large houses are evil. Does Fookes believe that all of those things should also be banned? If not, then how does he propose to distinguish actual evils from pretend ones? Who gets to make those decisions? Once the machinery of "restraining evil" is in place, what's to stop it from falling into the wrong hands? After all, Islamic totalitarians act to "restrain evil" by their understanding.

Fookes claims, "Based on [Armstrong's] logic, all drug use should be legalized, and all forms of indecency laws, traffic safety laws, etc., should be eliminated."

I have indeed argued that drug use, by consenting adults when the operation of heavy machinery or similar circumstances are not involved, should be legal. I have written many thousands of words arguing my case, and if Fookes can't be bothered to consider my case, I don't see why I should recapitulate it here.

I don't know what Fookes means by "indecency laws." Does he mean laws requiring clothes? If so, then I would point out that nudity is legal on private property and properly illegal on tax-funded property. The problem with banning all alleged "indecency" is that, first, not every indecent act violates rights, and, second, "indecency" is ambiguous and subjective.

Fookes is wrong that my position entails the elimination of traffic safety laws. So long as roads are tax-funded (and I don't concede that they should be), the government must set the policies for using those roads. However, I would note, if you build your own road, you may properly establish the policies for using that road.

So Fookes has not established that the government should "restrain evil" beyond the violation of rights. Nor has he explained how any reasonable limits can be established once government gets into the business of forcibly "restraining evil" beyond the context of rights, whether the evil is real or based on some dogma.

The Republican Schism

March 27, 2008

Colorado is a Republican state run by Democrats. Why is that? David Kirby of (http://www.americasfuture.org/) America's Future Foundation (AFF) organized a debate in Denver to figure it out. Brad Jones of (http://facethestate.com/) FaceTheState (shown in the photo) moderated the event, held March 26 at the Oxford Hotel. AFF (http://www.americasfuture.org/calendar/archives/022779.php) described the event as follows:

Democrats' Strategy to turn the Mountain West Blue, and What Libertarians and Conservatives Can Do About It

It's no mistake that Democrats will be hosting their national convention in Denver. Liberal funders have invested heavily in Colorado as part of a multi-cycle strategy to turn traditionally red states in the mountain west blue. But have Republicans and the Religious Right put more libertarian-leaning mountain states up for grabs? Looking at the primaries, does Huckabee's success indicate the growing or waning influence of evangelicals in the Republican Party? Does Ron Paul's fundraising success indicating a growing influence of libertarians? And what to make of McCain? Join our panelists as we discuss the future of libertarians, conservatives, and evangelicals in the West.

Featuring Jon Caldara, president, Independence Institute; Jim Pfaff, president, Colorado Family Council Ryan Sager, author, Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians and the Battle to Control the Republican Party; Gene Healy, senior editor at the Cato Institute and author, Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power; moderated by Brad Jones, Facethestate.com.

The four main speakers offered four different takes on the GOP and the problems arising from the "fusionism" of the last few decades between social conservatives (the religious right) and fiscal conservatives.

(Caldara and Healy are shown in the photo at left; Sager and Pfaff are shown below.)

1. Sager believes that social conservatives, with their emphasis on outlawing abortion and disparaging homosexuals, along with their increasing friendliness toward big-government programs, have alienated both socially-tolerant fiscal conservatives and younger voters. Sager said that he's sorry to lose social conservatives as political allies, but he didn't express much hope for a renewal of fusionism. Instead, pointing to polling data and demographic trends, Sager predicted continued Democratic success in the Interior West.

2. Pfaff, whose organization is friendly with James Dobson's Focus on the Family, argued that fusionism continues to be a sound basis for an alliance, and that many on the religious right continue to share concerns about limiting the power of the federal government.

3. Caldara suggested that the main problem is that Republicans aren't acting like Republicans; that is, they are promoting higher taxes, expanded political programs, and more government controls generally. This has dispirited the Republican base and made possible Democratic victories. He thinks that Republican "differences... are actually pretty small" and that they can be bridged.

4. Healy said basically that fusionism doesn't matter. Whether Republicans or Democrats have controlled the national government, its power has steadily expanded. However, while Clinton supported free trade, got the deficit under control, and helped reform welfare, Bush expanded welfare and launched a nation-building expedition. "If what you really care about" is limited government, Healy said, then partisanship is the wrong strategy. Instead, our best hope in the near future is divided government.

I suggest that a fifth explanation is the best one. Fusionism is inherently unstable, the conservative split was destined to happen, and a deepening schism is both inevitable and desirable.

Today's liberals of a classical bent, whom Sager calls the libertarians, are primarily concerned with individual rights. Thus, they care deeply about property rights and economic liberty, and they also care deeply about individual freedom. Their concern is fundamentally with the well-being of individual people and the society that they comprise; their basic value is earthly flourishing. Thus, the "fiscal conservatives" are dominantly secularists, even though many of them also hold religious views.

The religious right, on the other hand, is fundamentally concerned with success in the afterlife and with obeying the (alleged) commandments of God. The Bible doesn't lend much support to a politics of economic liberty; it is instead dominated by the ideal of giving away one's money to help the less-fortunate. Most Christians, even most "conservative" ones, endorse a robust welfare state. To the extent that Christians endorse relatively free markets, they usually do so on essentially collectivist grounds: free markets harness capitalist vice to enrich the masses. Capitalism does enrich the masses, but the key political question is whether the rights of the individual to pursue earthly happiness remain inviolable.

Certainly the likes of George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney advocate massive state intrusion in the market, often on explicitly religious grounds. Moreover, many on the religious right believe that God wants them to outlaw abortion, gay marriage (if not homosexuality), and pornography. Thus, even social conservatives who endorse relatively free markets—and they seem to be a dying breed—typically advocate censorship and highly intrusive state powers. To take but one example, the (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/fertilized-egg-is-not-person.html) effort in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person would, if enforced, impose severe state controls over our sexual and reproductive lives.

Democrats in Colorado have not won; Republicans have lost. Republicans have pushed for such measures as waiting periods for abortions and controls of book-store displays. They have resisted efforts to moderate the drug war, even for medical marijuana, and it took a Democratic government to repeal the Prohibition-era ban on Sunday liquor sales. So Republicans have certainly been unfriendly toward "socially tolerant" fiscal conservatives—a large group in the Interior West, as Sager has found. Meanwhile, Republicans have also given us massive tax hikes, the smoking ban, and corporate welfare. While some Republicans do actually push for free markets, Republicans on the whole are only modestly better than Democrats at defending economic liberty, and often Republicans are leading the charge to violate economic liberty.

I myself have renounced "fusionism." The religious right is no friend of liberty. I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) voted for Democrat Bill Ritter for governor, I have (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) indicated my likely support for Mark Udall over Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate, and I have (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/john-mccain-on-religion.html) pledged not to vote for John McCain, who has trampled the First Amendment as well as pushed for faith-based politics.

Fusionism is dead. Good riddance.

As far as I can see, the only real hope for liberty (beyond the necessary philosophical foundation) is for the civil-libertarian left, the free-trade Democrats, and the free-market right to form a new alliance. The religious right has already started to merge with the religious left, and that process will continue. The ultimate battle is between reason and liberty on one side and faith and force on the other. Of course, some non-Christians, such as rabid environmentalists, will join the side of socialism, their natural home, while various Christians will join the side of liberty. Social tolerance insists on freedom of religion (including freedom from religion) and naturally includes tolerance for religious differences—so long as religionists don't try to impose their religious dogmas by force.

But on with the discussion.

Pfaff argued that there "really isn't a divide at all;" he called himself a "Christian libertarian" and a member of the "Reagan coalition." He said that, while he is concerned with the politics of "life" and "marriage" (i.e., banning abortion and preventing homosexual unions), social conservatives are "not just animated by family / life issues." They also care about freedom in the economy.

"I have no desire to live in a pro-life, socialist state," Pfaff said. For one thing, under socialism he'd lose the "pro-life" issue, too. (I don't think that point is correct, as Christian socialism is possible.) He added, "To understand social conservatives, you have to understand that life issue." He said the matters of abortion and marriage, as well as fiscal issues, are "rooted in the principles of liberty." By my lights, that only demonstrates that the meaning of liberty depends crucially on underlying principles.

Caldara tried to sprinkle some water on burning bridges. "For the most part, I love social conservatives," he said. However, Caldara made perhaps the most devastating critique of fusionism, even if he didn't intend his comments as such. He pointed out that, in the good ol' days of fusionism, God loved guns and low taxes, so fusionism worked. But now "God is having second thoughts on both issues," and the religious right seems more concerned with telling people how to live. The problem that Caldara points to is that of faith-based politics: Christians who try to justify capitalism through religion ultimately fail to do so, while other Christians successfully sacrifice capitalism to religion (consider, for instance, the rise of (http://www.sojo.net/) Jim Wallis.)

But the GOP has other problems, Caldara noted, such as the "business-development Republicans," whose idea of business development is a combination of corporate-welfare, discriminatory taxation, and political favoritism. I would describe the broader problem here as pragmatism: many Republicans don't even know what principles are, much less seek to apply them in politics.

Healy offered perhaps the most painfully funny talk. "Is it really a shame" if "our side" loses, he asked? Bush has hardly represented a victory for conservatives. He also suggested that, with a Democratic president, at least Republicans might oppose some expansions of federal power.

In line with his new book, Healy offered a more fundamental critique of the American presidency. The modern president has become "the living embodiment of America's hopes and dreams," he said. He quoted Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Bush about controlling the economy, creating an American "kingdom," following Teddy Roosevelt, and having "a heart big enough to love those who hurt."

In other words, the president is supposed to be "America's shrink and social worker and talk-show host," as well as the protector of the entire earth, all in one person. "The president is supposed to be a superhero." However, Healy warned, "With great responsibility comes great power."

Sager began by reviewing the history of fusionism. Bush, he argued, abandoned fusionism in favor of so-called "compassionate conservatism." Sager blasted McCain's campaign censorship law. Citing recent history, he asked, if you are socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, "why on earth would you vote Republican?" The Democratic Party is increasingly the home of free trade plus social tolerance, he suggested.

Sager places the blame for fusionism's demise squarely with the religious right, which seems to care most about "denying civil rights to gay people." Such a position alienates young voters as well as civil libertarians, he added. The message of the GOP insofar as it is dominated by the religious right is, "We are the party of bigotry."

In the question period, Healy noted that, even though he is sympathetic with the "pro-life" position, he no longer sees a basis for a broad coalition. Social conservatives are "no longer part of the leave-me-alone coalition," he said. Instead, they seem to be following the ideals of the Great Society. Pfaff said that he supported Huckabee, whom Healy particularly criticized, despite concerns with Huckabee's economic pronouncements.

Pfaff was obviously feeling a little bit beat up. I think that's because, ultimately, Pfaff cannot establish a basis for fusionism, even though he obviously wants to. To me, Pfaff's support for Huckabee indicates where his priorities rest. While I appreciate Pfaff's concern for economic liberty, he's half-heartedly fighting a battle within the religious right that he simply cannot win.

As the old alliances crumble, people are going to have to make some hard choices. Democrats will have to decide whether they care more about class warfare or a sound economy. Civil-libertarians of the left will have to decide whether they can live with civil liberties such as gun ownership and property rights. Christians of the right will need to decide whether they care more about abortion and homosexuality or economic liberty—and pick their allies accordingly.

Meanwhile, those who consistently advocate individual rights must fight for their principles and try to bring others on board.

Peikoff's Eleventh Podcast

March 29, 2008

(http://www.peikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff has released his (http://www.peikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-03-24.011.mp3) eleventh podcast. He discusses seven main questions:

1. Does a John Galt exist in the real world?
2. Is Objectivism hedonistic?
3. What should we make of Bill Gates's recent comments?
4. Are there evil geniuses in the world?
5. Does everyone appreciate art?
6. When does one develop a sense of life?
7. Is it possible to be moral but miserable?

Peikoff offers some interesting comments about Kant and psychology, but I was most interested in Peikoff's comments regarding the second question. Peikoff begins by discussing the nature of happiness; it is not a "state of emotional pleasure." Instead, it is a "long-term... enduring, fundamental pleasure" based on a relationship to reality. Hedonism suggests acting on whim. For Objectivism, happiness is not the standard of ethics, life is. Happiness is the result of a living a moral life. There is a "big difference between standard and purpose" in the Objectivist ethics, Peikoff explains.

By the way, the word is that Peikoff's podcasts will be made available through iTunes.

Productivity Hour

March 29, 2008

Tonight I'll be celebrating Productivity Hour by enjoying as many electric-powered items as possible. Unfortunately, as The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8729028) reported,

Saturday at 8 p.m., residents of Denver will join environmentally-conscious people around the world in switching off lights and non-essential appliances, to give the Earth's energy resources a break. "Earth Hour," will be observed across six continents, with as many as 370 cities officially pledged to take part.

The event, created by the World Wildlife Fund, asks for volunteers to unplug for for one hour as a symbolic gesture in support of action on climate change.

Nicholas Provenzo (http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/03/north-korean-support-for-earth-hour.htm) points out, "As shown by [a] composite satellite image of the Earth at night, North Korean support for 'Earth Hour'... is near universal and extends throughout the year."

Idiot Hour

March 30, 2008

I enjoyed my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/productivity-hour.html) Productivity Hour very much. I thought about how much electricity benefits our lives and how the goal should be to produce dramatically more energy, not less.

I was pleased to read the following (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8744830) headline: "Denver hardly plugged into 'Earth Hour'." Downtown "most businesses remained brightly lit during a global effort to dim lights and raise awareness of climate change."

I especially appreciated the way that Denver Post reporter Kieran Nicholson interviewed critics of "Earth Hour." No, wait—she didn't do that. Instead, she wrote a one-sided story that was basically a propaganda piece for the environmentalist religion. Nicholson presumed that those who refused to cow to this environmentalist nonsense were "operating in the metaphorical dark when it came to Earth Hour." It couldn't possibly be that some Coloradans realize that "Earth Hour" is insanity and intentionally turned on their lights in protest.

"Earth Hour" should have been called Idiot Hour, as the following passages from Nicholson's story illustrate:

Steve Hulsberg, 29, of Aurora... an information technology worker, attended the Denver International Auto Show at the Colorado Convention Center before walking over to the mall to see the lights dim. He's looking to buy a hybrid Ford Escape or Toyota Highlander, he said, in the interest of being "green." ...

Floridians Steven Darby and his son Rutland were spending spring break in Colorado to ski.

At the Hard Rock on Saturday, they were surprised—but enthusiastic—when the lights went low.

"I think it's a great concept," Steven Darby said.

It turns out that the Escape (http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escape/) gets 22 to 28 miles per gallon, while the Highlander (http://www.toyota.com/highlander/specs.html) gets 18 to 24 miles per gallon. That's "green?" My non-hybrid car gets better gas mileage than that. But, hey, it's a "hybrid," so who cares about how much gas it actually burns! This is, after all, a cult, not anything that actually has anything to do with the real environment.

And how much energy did the Floridians consume traveling to Colorado? Or eating at a restaurant? Yes, anti-industrial environmentalism is a "great concept," so long as it's limited to an hour of a pleasant spring evening, and we can still sit in a plush, warm restaurant or contemplate gas-guzzling automobiles.

Don't get me wrong—I'm happy that the participants of "Earth Hour" are, for the most part, a bunch of hypocrites. If they actually took seriously this nonsense about turning out the lights and not using energy, they would be thoroughly morally corrupt, rather than merely hypocritical.

Update: Someone suggested that critics of "Earth Hour" ought not be so harsh in their condemnations. So I'll grant here that, also for the most part, those who participated in "Earth Hour" (by turning off lights and other "non-essential" appliances) are well-intentioned, in that they want to maintain an industrial society, only one that reduces "greenhouse" emissions. Furthermore, these people can point to evidence (or at least widely purported evidence) that human activity significantly contributes to global warming (despite the fact that global warming is, historically, cyclical).

Nevertheless, I do maintain that pro-industrial participants of "Earth Hour" aren't noticing the implications of turning out the lights. "Earth Hour" suggests that the proper way to deal with global warming is to reduce human consumption of energy. Even if global warming is likely to continue over coming decades, even if it is significantly caused by human activity, and even if it would significantly harm people by century's end—and in my view each of those propositions is shakier than the last—the proper solution is not to reduce the production of energy. Reducing the production of energy implies less productivity overall, and fewer life-enhancing goods and services in the U.S. and more poverty globally. Forcibly reducing energy production would impose high human costs and yet fail to seriously address global warming. Such a move would hamper economic advancement, including potential advancements in energy production.

Instead, the proper solution is to allow people to act in an unfettered free market—rather than in a political arena dominated by special interests and political favoritism—to discover better ways to use and produce energy. Notably, nuclear power is clean and safe, yet many environmentalists continue to oppose it. I don't know whether nuclear power would win in a market over the coming decades, or whether some other source of energy would prove more effective and economical. But I do know that the political process has brought us such things as corn gas, which is essentially worthless in terms of addressing global warming (but great for enriching special interests and raising food prices). Thus I conclude where I began: the goal should be to produce dramatically more energy, not less.

Muslims Top Catholics; Fitna Update

March 31, 2008

Fox has a couple of interesting news items about Islam. The first (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343336,00.html) reports:

Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population—a stable percentage—while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

Formenti offered a reason for the trends: "[W]hile Muslim families... continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer."

However, "Christians make up 33 percent of the world population, Formenti said."

So, combined, Muslims plus Christians make up just over half of the earth's population. Regardless of which sect is on top, monotheism is clearly dominant.

In (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343351,00.html) other news, "Nations around the world are protesting the release of a Dutch lawmaker's anti-Islamic film." The film in question is Fitna. It's unclear to me whether YouTube videos referred to as "Fitna" that I was (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/03/fitna-and-free-speech.html) unable to watch are related to the Fitna in question, but it seems not. The (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/liveleak-drops-anti-islam-film-after-threats) link to the video that Fox uses works at this time.

The video contains three main elements: select versus from the Quran that endorse violence, recorded speeches by various Muslims that endorse violence, and scenes of Islamic violence. The movie does not demonstrate that Islam is inherently violent, but it does demonstrate that various Muslims have, in fact, endorsed and carried out terrorist violence. Indeed, the creator of the film, Geert Wilders, has received death threats. (I have read claims alleging that Wilders supports policies that I oppose, including censorship, but I don't know whether those claims are true. Regardless, he deserves freedom of speech and the right to live without fear of being murdered.)

If Islam does not promote violence, then it is up to the followers of Islam to prove it by abstaining from, preventing, and denouncing Islamic violence.

The story from Fox continues, "Despite their condemnation, the European leaders defended the right to freedom of speech and called on Muslims to react peacefully." At least freedom of speech remains a live issue. Unfortunately, "hundreds of Indonesian students took to the streets Sunday... demanding that authorities shut down websites carrying Geert Wilders' film."

And the group Muslims for Free Speech said... nothing, because, as far as I could find with a quick internet search, there is no such organization.

I did check the (http://www.minaret.org/) Minaret of Freedom; a search of "free speech" there pulled up ten hits, most of which are not relevant. At least the organization did criticize the use of legislation to censor speech:

Dutch extremist politician Geert Wilders finally releases his anti-Islam film online, but his project of incitement might be undermined by another Islamophobe as Muhammad (PBUH) cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says he'll sue over the film's unlawful use of his drawing…

* (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032703722.html) Online, a Violent View of Islam (Washington Post)
* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7318733.stm) Cartoonist to Sue Over Islam Film (BBC News)

…meanwhile the UN Human Rights Council passes an ill-conceived OIC-backed resolution using legislation rather than the free market of ideas to counter hate speech against other faiths:

* (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032704100.html) UN OKs Islamic Text Against Defamation (Associated Press/Washington Post)

The organization does not explain what constitutes "Islamophobia"—apparently anything critical of Islam qualifies. Nor the does the organization explain why it thinks Fitna constitutes "hate speech."

There is, however, very obvious "hate speech" associated with Fitna: it is the speech coming from the recordings of Islamists, such as when one Islamic leader pulls out a sword while exhorting a crowd to behead Jews.

Update: I did find a (http://www.ev-jugend.de/eyce/index.php?name=PagEd&topic_id=2&page_id=474) release from "Young Muslims for Freedom of Speech:"

The Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO) condemns any form of blasphemy that was displayed in the printing of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad. We are dismayed at the publications and voice our strong objection to this treatment of Prophet Mohammed and any other Prophet (peace and blessings be on them) as being insulting and unacceptable.

Khallad Swaid, President of FEMYSO said: "The freedom of speech is an important fundamental right, which is not to be compromised, but as everything else, has its limits."

"Where religious beliefs, regardless of the religion, or feelings are hurt, its limit has been exceeded." We welcome critical debate but this is an abuse of the freedom of speech which has deliberately provoked Muslims and fuelled hatred and this is unacceptable. Therefore we call on all sections of the media to be more sensitive and responsible and on the governments to take a more robust stance in condemning such offensive images. The FEMYSO [Forum of Eurpoean Muslim Youth and Studnt Organisations] condemns with the strongest terms any violence against people or objects and calls upon all Muslims to protest by peaceful means and respect our fellow Europeans who are not to blame generaly. This neither has been the way the Prophet Muhammad reacted at any time himself nor is it considered to be of civilised manner. He always searched for ways using dialogue to communicate, exchange and explain himself towards his counterpart. We also suggest to our member organisations to use this opportunity to introduce to their societies the life and character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), who was always seeking justice and peace.

I find several things about this release interesting. At least the release "condemns... violence." Unfortunately, the release does not actually advocate freedom of speech. It does not condemn censorship, but it does claim that free speech "has its limits." It condemns the cartoons—and, by implication, any criticism of Islam or even any portrayal of the image of Muhammad—as "blasphemous." Moreover, the release blames the Danish cartoons for Islamic violence, which is absurd.

Israel Under Terrorism

March 31, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080331/OPINION/402537971) was published on March 31 by Grand Junction's Free Press. See also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/linns-trip-to-israel-part-i.html) Part I and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/israel-and-law.html) Part II.

For Israelis, risk of terrorist attacks alters everyday life

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

This article, written from Linn's perspective, is the third and final in a series based on Linn's February trip to Israel as part of the Ultimate Counter Terrorism Mission. Additional notes and photographs from the trip will be published at FreeColorado.com within a week or two.

Security in Israel is tight. When we were entering a restaurant, a guard approached my group, searched our purses and bags, and asked us to open our coats so that he could make sure we weren't wearing any extra belts.

Those not used to such measures might be surprised or uneasy to see guards carrying Uzi submachine guns, yet such guards and searches are the norm. Before any business can open its doors, it must have a business license. The license requires a security plan, which means many businesses will have an armed guard checking all bags and purses.

I had barely gotten past the guard when my cell phone rang. It was my wife Sharon, home in the States, with worry in her voice. She told me that a suicide bomber (known as a missile man to the locals) had detonated, killing two women. I assured her that the attack was many miles from where we were, and we were in no danger.

Everyone in Israel has a cell phone and the phones are always ringing. A general's phone may ring while he's giving a briefing; a bus driver will answer his phone while driving. Answering one's cell phone is not a sign of disrespect or a lack of courtesy. It is a way to assure worried family members and loved ones. Nearly everyone in Israel is directly or indirectly involved with the police or military. Everyone in Israel is fighting terrorism.

The man in charge of Israel's largest airport—Ben Gurion International Airport—had recently returned from the U.S. after reviewing the security of some of its airports, including Denver International. As gracious as our host was, he couldn't help but grimace when I asked him to rate the security of DIA. He politely refused to answer this question for reasons of politics as well as security. Many of the law enforcement personnel in our travel group agreed with our host when he suggested that, in the U.S., we are better prepared for picking up the pieces than for prevention.

Hebrew University is located at Mount Scopus in the eastern part of Jerusalem, between the predominantly Jewish West Jerusalem and various Arab villages. On July 31, 2002, a Palestinian construction worker exploded a bomb in the university's crowded cafeteria. A tree that was partially blown over by the blast is now part of a memorial for the students killed by the terrorist.

Today a sophisticated security fence surrounds the University. Everyone is required to enter the facility and pass through security, which includes metal detectors and bag checks similar to airport security. This is part of the idea in Israel of being proactive.

Entering the Jerusalem Central Bus Station is very much like entering any airport security system in the U.S. Security personnel profile the passengers as they do at airports. The major difference is that there are hundreds of bus stops in the inner city of Jerusalem. Both uniformed and undercover officers guard the busses and bus stops.

Some of the buses that travel dangerous routes are literally armored vehicles. These buses remind me of the old Clint Eastwood movie Gauntlet where the bus has to travel through sniper fire and bombs.

At least Eastwood did not have to worry about terrorists boarding the bus hoping to take it into Egypt to create an international incident. Such an event took place on Bus Line 300. Alon Stivi related this story because his father, a former paratrooper, was on board. Thinking quickly, the bus driver hit the brakes and opened the emergency doors, allowing Stivi's father to escape. The intelligence that his father provided allowed an Israeli commando unit trained in bus assaults to take the bus back with no additional Israeli casualties. This is one reason why Stivi's training of law enforcement in bus assaults has such an element of realism.

Healers also must prepare for terrorism. Prior to my trip, a terrorist, determined to detonate, was headed to the maternity ward of the Hadassa Hospital. Fortunately, he was intercepted before he reached his destination. Hadassa Hospital, which prides itself in providing services for Jews, Arabs, and Christians alike, stocks supplies to last for months, and it prepares for the potential of mass casualties.

In Israel, the struggle against terrorism affects everyone, every day. We would do well to remember the precarious situation of Israel, our ally, and the risk to ourselves if we continue to close our eyes to the state sponsors of terror in the Middle East.

Hamas Promotes Terror Against Israel

April 1, 2008

This year's April Fools belong to the Bush administration for believing that they can pander to Islamic terrorists and expect the outcome to be peace.

A New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html) article by Steven Erlanger dated April 1, "In Gaza, Hamas's Fiery Insults to Jews Complicate Peace Effort," discusses some of the problems in the region. All quotations are from that article.

Imam Yousif al-Zahar of Hamas said of the Jews: "Their fate is their vanishing."

At Al Omari mosque, the imam cursed the Jews and the "Crusaders," or Christians, and the Danes, for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. He referred to Jews as "the brothers of apes and pigs," while the Hamas television station, Al Aksa, praises suicide bombing and holy war until Palestine is free of Jewish control.

Its videos praise fighters and rocket-launching teams; its broadcasts insult the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, for talking to Israel and the United States; its children's programs praise "martyrdom," teach what it calls the perfidy of the Jews and the need to end Israeli occupation over Palestinian land, meaning any part of the state of Israel.

Consider the insanity of the the imam simultaneously cursing the Danish cartoons, which either criticized actual problems within Islam or merely depicted Muhammad in a neutral way, and spewing overt bigotry against Jews.

The film Fitna, which I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/03/muslims-top-catholics-fitna-update.html) discussed yesterday, shows a video of a little girl repeating, at the encouragement of an adult woman, the same bigotry against Jews. Yet some Muslims decry Fitna as "hate speech"—without breathing a word against the actual hate speech by Muslims against Jews.

The article continues:

[I]n a column in the weekly Al Risalah, Sheik Yunus al-Astal, a Hamas legislator and imam, discussed a Koranic verse suggesting that "suffering by fire is the Jews' destiny in this world and the next."

"The reason for the punishment of burning is that it is fitting retribution for what they have done," Mr. Astal wrote on March 13. "But the urgent question is, is it possible that they will have the punishment of burning in this world, before the great punishment" of hell? Many religious leaders believe so, he said, adding, "Therefore we are sure that the holocaust is still to come upon the Jews."

One point of Fitna is precisely that some modern Muslims draw a violent message from the Quran. Yet some Muslims direct their anger against Fitna, rather than against those Muslims who do, in fact, draw a violent message from the Quran.

Is it not obvious that, for peace to succeed in the Middle East, Muslims there have to stop murdering Jews and advocating the annihilation of Israel?

Foolish Price Controls

April 1, 2008

It's almost as if Colorado Democrats are trying to actively destroy what's left of the private health-insurance market so that they can later impose socialized medicine. Yet, even though a Democratic plan to impose price controls should be an April Fools' joke, these legislators seem to be deadly serious, with an emphasis on the term "deadly."

The AP (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/30/bills-call-cracking-down-insurance-industry/) reports: "Democrats plan to introduce a package of bills to require health insurance firms [in part] to get prior approval for rate hikes..."

This is the same legislature that has imposed various mandates on insurance benefits, thereby driving up the cost of insurance.

It's just hard for me to believe that Democrats are this ignorant of basic economics. What is driving the artificial inflation of health-insurance costs is precisely the large collection of political controls over insurance. If it weren't for those controls, health insurance would cost far less, and many more people could afford it. But the Democrats have, so far as I have heard, expressed zero interest in repealing those controls. So what will happen if politicians add price controls to the mix? The result will be a shortage: fewer people will be able to obtain health insurance.

These Democrats seem to forget that a market price is determined by both consumers and producers. And both parties have the right to participate in arrangements by voluntary choice, without political meddling.

Note to Democrats: if you'd get a clue about economics and figure out that politicians do a horrible job of running the economy, you would pick up voters like me in a heart-beat. As I've recently (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/republican-schism.html) discussed, I've already started voting for Democrats just because I'm so disgusted with Republicans. But this crazy talk about price controls and the like reminds me that Democrats want to control my every economic decision just as Republicans want to control my every personal decision. Is there anyone in Colorado government who actually understands and cares about liberty? It would sure be nice to have the option of voting for a candidate who didn't try to to run other people's lives for them.

'Religion of Peace' Kills Again

April 2, 2008

The main story for today's post regards a "Saudi woman killed for chatting on Facebook." But first I want to mention two other stories on related topics that I've mentioned previously.

Israel National News (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/144165) reports (via (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=29458_Wafa_Sultan_in_Hiding&only) Little Green Footballs via (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/04/bad-news-for-wafa-sultan.html) Diana Hsieh):

(IsraelNN.com) Dr. Wafa Sultan has been forced to go into hiding with her family following a fatwa (religious edict) from an Islamic scholar, according to Omedia. Sultan faces the fatwa following a recent debate on Al-Jazeera in which she challenged Egyptian Islamist Talat Rheim over Dutch cartoons of Mohammed, who Muslims revere as a prophet. Sultan argued that Denmark had the right to print the cartoons.

Sultan joins a growing list of public critics of radical Islam facing death threats. Her supporters have asked the American public to join them in writing to the embassy of Qatar, the country which sponsors Al-Jazeera, as well as to United States President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking them to defend Sultan's right to free speech and personal safety.

I've quoted from the (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/03/wafa-sultan-defends-liberty.html) debate in question.

Next, Pat Condell has a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4) new video out about Fitna (via Footballs via Howard R.), a film that I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/03/muslims-top-catholics-fitna-update.html) discussed a couple days ago. The producer of that film has also been threatened with death.

For a "religion of peace," Islam seems to get more than its share of attention for some of its followers murdering people and threatening to murder people in the name of Islam.

Which brings us to the story about another so-called "honor killing" to hit the news.

The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/31/wsaudi131.xml) reports (via (http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/03/saudi-man-murders-daughter-caught-using-facebook/) 1000 Papercuts):

Saudi woman killed for chatting on Facebook
By Damien McElroy Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:46am BST 01/04/2008

A young Saudi Arabian woman was murdered by her father for chatting on the social network site Facebook, it has emerged.

The unnamed woman from Riyadh was beaten and shot after she was discovered in the middle of an online conversation with a man, the al-Arabiya website reported.

The case was reported on a Saudi Arabian news site as an example of the "strife" the social networking site is causing in the Islamic nation.

Saudi preacher Ali al-Maliki has emerged as the leading critic of Facebook, claiming the network is corrupting the youth of the nation. ...

The woman was murdered in August but her death was highlighted following Maliki's comments. ...

Critics also allege that Facebook is an avenue for the promotion of homosexual relations in Saudi Arabia. More than 6,500 people have signed the online petition in a bid to stop the conservative Muslim kingdom following Syria in banning access to the network from local internet servers.

What's odd about this story is that the only reason we know about it is that it was used by the locals as an example of why Facebook is bad. Facebook causes "strife." And fathers beating and shooting their daughters to death? Isn't that the more obvious and morally culpable cause of "strife?" Shouldn't violence against women, rather than internet communication, be effectively banned by the government?

Meanwhile, Western leaders are falling all over themselves to appease various followers of the "religion of peace," lest those followers start murdering people and destroying property again—for the cause of "peace," of course.

Two New Ayn Rand Resources

April 2, 2008

The Ayn Rand Institute recently has launched two new web pages devoted to Ayn Rand and her work.

(http://www.atlasshrugged.com/) AtlasShrugged.com includes various essays about the novel and its history, several hours of video by Onkar Ghate featuring a "chapter-by-chapter discussion," and audio recordings by Ayn Rand and others.

(http://www.facetsofaynrand.com/) FacetsOfAynRand.com reproduces in full the book by Marry Ann and Charles Sures. For me, the highlight of the web page is a collection of audio recordings by Mary Ann Sures, Leonard Peikoff, and others. So far I've listened to only a couple of the recordings, but they are delightful and fascinating.

These two new resources join the (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/) Ayn Rand Lexicon, which makes available extensive quotes from Rand's many works, organized topically.

Finally, (http://www.aynrand.org/) AynRand.org makes available media releases and essays and, on the registered users' page (registration is free), an extensive library of audio and video recordings of Ayn Rand and others. For example, so far in 2008 the page has made available the lectures "Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution," by Keith Lockitch, and "The 'Market Failure' Fallacy," by Brian Simpson.

Though this material is available for free to the user, it is extremely valuable, and those of all backgrounds and levels can find many hours of illuminating discussions here. I applaud the Ayn Rand Institute for making these outstanding resources available to the general public.

Affirmative Action: Vandenberg Challenges Connerly

April 3, 2008

Ward Connerly of California is involved in a petition effort in Colorado to end affirmative action at the level of state government. Bill Vandenberg is the "Co-Executive Director" (though there (http://www.progressivecoalition.org/cpcstaff.htm) seems to be only one director) of the Colorado Progressive Coalition. Vandenberg is also the co-chair of the Colorado Unity Coalition, an organization that supports affirmative action. The upshot of the story is that Vandenberg's coalition has challenged the initiative with the Secretary of State, claiming that petitioners deceived some people who signed it.*

Let us first turn to the specific complaints lodged by Vandenberg's organization.

The story has been covered by (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/01denver.html) The New York Times, the (http://www.progressivecoalition.org/AC124.htm) Associated Press, and (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8775386) The Denver Post. The Post also made available a (http://www.denverpost.com/extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2008/0402/20080402_125625_2008.04.01.PDF) document described as "the formal complaints that have been filed with the secretary of state."

Following are the specific allegations of deceit reported by those stories and the "formal complaints."

* From the Post: a petition circulator "implied it was a pro-affirmative-action amendment." Implied? Those are weak grounds for a legal challenge.

* From the AP and the "formal complaints:" Candace Frie claims in the complaint, "[T]he petitioner... explained that it was an initiative to help end discrimination against all people." According to the AP, "She said she signed a petition outside a grocery store in Arvada when a man approached her saying the initiative would promote civil rights." But the petitioner described the initiative exactly correctly in this case. The initiative states, "The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin." Affirmative action is a form of discrimination. Its supporters claim that it is a good form of discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless.

* From the Times: "Freddie Whitney was walking out of a King Soopers supermarket here this winter when she was approached by three young men. They politely asked if she was against discrimination and, if so, if she would sign a petition that would legally end the practice in the state." Again, the petitioners explained the initiative correctly in this case.

* From the Times: "People were told that this would end discrimination, in some cases that it would actually support affirmative action," Mr. Vandenberg said. If people were told that the measure would "support affirmative action," then that was indeed deceitful.

* From the "formal complaints:" Tracy Seat writes, "The first petition collector... [was] explaining that the petition was for a ballot issue that would restore 'equality in the workplace.' ... I asked the petitioner if this petition was to eliminate affirmative action, because that was what the language of the petition sounded like. He replied that it 'could' eliminate some of the provisions. I had to ask very specifically a couple of times and press him for an answer before he would admit that the measure would in fact eliminate affirmative action." A second petitioner "stated that she believed we don't need affirmative action any more." In other words, while the petitioners might have been coy, there were basically honest about the initiative.

Notably, Seat never claims to have signed the petition, so how exactly is this an example of a problem?

(Also, Seat complains that the petition circulators were not showing identification per statute 1-40-112(2)(B). However, if Vandenberg's group wishes to check the statute, they will find in the Annotations the fact that the identification requirements were found to be unconstitutional.)

* From the "formal complaints:" Chloe Johnson writes, "... I was approached by a petition circulator who asked me to sign a petition that would end discrimination in Colorado... I questioned this petitioner knowing that we already had laws to prevent this but he told me that they would no longer be effective in the following months." The first part of the petitioner circulator's (alleged) statements is true, the second part is deceitful.

So, from the documents listed, we get a sum total of three alleged instances of deceit on the part of a petition circulator. One of the instances is a mere "implication," and another is second-hand from Vandenberg. This leaves a single example of somebody who claims to have signed a petition after hearing deceitful claims from a petition circulator. While I suppose that others have legitimate complaints, I have to wonder why the documents listed are so short on good examples. Even one example of deceit is cause for concern, yet there is not a single initiative that would be exempt from a few complaints.

* * *

At this point I want to make some more general comments about the story.

I've met Vandenberg and I respect him, even though we disagree on most issues. He and I have been on the same page several times; we both supported the effort to reform Colorado's asset forfeiture laws, and I cheered on his effort to require police officers to hand out business cards to people they stop but don't arrest. We agree on various other polices. But in the realm of economics, we disagree about practically everything.

I support the initiative to end state-sponsored affirmative action. First, I believe that state-sponsored affirmative action (as opposed to affirmative action by organizations not part of or funded by the state) violates or at least strains the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, I believe that the proper way to advance the interests of minorities is to achieve a quality education system for minority youth. (I further hold that market education is the only way to achieve such quality, but that topic is too far afield for this post.) College is simply too late. Third, I believe that, where state funds are concerned, employees should be hired because they are the most qualified applicants, not because of their race or gender.

But the present story is about the proper way to put initiatives on the ballot, not about the fact that Vandenberg obviously opposes the measure, while I support it.

I would like to suggest that Vandenberg show restraint. Nearly every initiative uses paid petition circulators. Indeed, the same circulator might, at different times, collect signatures for two opposing measures.

The fact is that politics is complicated. Legislators, lawyers, judges, and juries regularly disagree about the meaning of statutes. It is inevitable that petition circulators will present a petition in a way that others can call into question. If Vandenberg is successful at challenging Connerly's initiative, does he imagine that the tactic will stop there? It will not. If Vandenberg can imagine any future initiative that he himself might support, I encourage him not to create a hyper-litigious atmosphere in which activists are trailing petition circulators in the hopes of catching some misstatement on tape.

Of course, while petition circulators can make honest mistakes and can honestly disagree about various elements of various petitions, outright deceit is clearly out of bounds. It should be most strongly discouraged by the sponsors of the initiative. There are three main reasons for this. First, dishonesty is morally wrong, and it fosters a generally less-honest society. Second, petition circulators should truthfully represent the nature of the initiative in order to advertise its existence. Third, as the present story demonstrates, dishonest circulators can create extremely negative publicity for the initiative in question.

What, then, is the proper remedy? First and foremost, it is the responsibility of people who sign petitions to read the language. If you trust the lingo of the circulator over the actual language of the initiative, then frankly you are the person most at fault. If you can't take an initiative seriously enough to read its language, then why are you signing the petition in the first place? Do you sign contracts without reading them, too?

Indeed, the petitions themselves urge signers to read the language. Following is the relevant statute:

1-40-110. Warning—ballot title.

(1) At the top of each page of every initiative or referendum petition section shall be printed, in a form as prescribed by the secretary of state, the following:

"WARNING:
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW:
For anyone to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any name other than his or her own or to knowingly sign his or her name more than once for the same measure or to knowingly sign a petition when not a registered elector who is eligible to vote on the measure.

DO NOT SIGN THIS PETITION UNLESS YOU ARE A REGISTERED ELECTOR AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. TO BE A REGISTERED ELECTOR, YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN OF COLORADO AND REGISTERED TO VOTE.

Before signing this petition, you are encouraged to read the text or the title of the proposed initiative or referred measure."

Iif you do sign a petition without bothering to read and evaluate it, then don't blame somebody else for your own civic failure.

That said, if petition circulators are genuinely found to use deceit in favor of some initiative, then organizations are right to go after them in the public arena. But I maintain that lodging legal challenges is usually not the proper way to go, unless the level of deceit is egregious or somebody is actually physically altering the petitions or some such.

(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8775386) According to The Denver Post, "Penalties for fraud could include disqualifying the batches of signatures collected by canvassers found to have misled voters. Errant petitioners could also face $500 fines and up to a year in county jail, [Rich] Coolidge [spokesman for the secretary of state] said." I believe that Coolidge is referring to 1-40-130, which is rather vague.

My read is that Vandenberg's group has a legitimate complaint, but not a legitimate legal challenge. Vandenberg earned publicity for his cause, but if he successfully presses the legal challenge he may make it more difficult—and more expensive—for any group to gather signatures. It would indeed be ironic if the result of Vandenberg's "progressive" challenge was to further advantage those with more money.

* April 6 update: While I originally claimed that Vandenberg's group challenged the measure "in court," that's not quite right. The Post reports that the challenge sets "the stage for a potential lawsuit," and that the "three formal complaints... have been sent [by the Secretary of State] to administrative law judges for evaluation, Coolidge said."

Taliban Murders Young Couple

April 7, 2008

Various practitioners of Islam continue to perpetrate and advocate murder in the name of their religion. Following are two recent stories reported by Fox.

The first (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345088,00.html) story involves the murder of a young couple for the "crime" of getting married without the consent of their parents:

A couple found guilty of adultery by an Islamic "qazi" court was stoned to death by Taliban militants in Pakistan's northwest border region, according to a report in Dawn, Pakistan's English-language newspaper.

The execution, which reportedly took place Monday [March 31], is the first by stoning reported in the region, which borders Afghanistan. "Qazi" courts, which are allowed to administer Islamic law outside the Pakistani judicial system, traditionally have ordered execution by firing squad in cases of adultery.

The married woman, identified as Shano, had allegedly eloped on March 15 with Daulat Khan Malikdeenkhel.

A spokesman for the Taliban said a complaint had been received from the woman's family that she had been abducted by Daulat Khan. They later changed the report to say she had run away with him.

What a bunch of despicable barbarians.

But such insanity exists only in backward cultures of the Middle East, right? The second (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344409,00.html) story, which (http://www.islam-watch.org/AyeshaAhmed/London-Imam-Attempt-to-Carry-Out-Sunna.htm) cites Islam Watch, quotes two European Islamists:

A question-and-answer session with Imam Abdul Makin in an East London mosque asks why Allah would tell Muslims to kill and rape innocent non-Muslims, including their wives and daughters, according to Islam Watch.

"Because non-Muslims are never innocent, they are guilty of denying Allah and his prophet," the Imam says, according to the report. "If you don't believe me, here is the legal authority, the top Muslim lawyer of Britain."

The lawyer, Anjem Choudary, backs up the Imam's position, saying that all Muslims are innocent. ... Choudary said he would not condemn a Muslim for any action.

What's astounding is how many people in the West can continue to ignore such warnings.

Can't Republicans Just Get Along?

April 7, 2008

Reviewing a March 27 (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/republican-schism.html) forum in Denver, I sounded a pessimistic note regarding the alliance between fiscal conservatives and the religious right. Now various other writers have weighed in on the matter. (Jon Caldara, one of the speakers at the forum, noted all of the following sources in a recent e-mail, except an article by Reason.)

Ryan Sager, a New Yorker who also spoke in Denver, reviewed the politics of the Interior West in his book, The Elephant in the Room. In a March 28 (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gop_achilles_heel_103897.htm?page=0) column for the New York Post, Sager explained why Democrats are likely to continue to find success in the Interior West. Sager writes:

The GOP is already well on its way to losing the West. ...

It's been clear for years the interior West, once reliably Republican, was becoming a swing region. ... In 2000, none of these eight states [Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming] had a Democratic governor. Now five do, including Colorado. ...

In fact, Colorado now looks bluer than a half-drowned Smurf. It's got a Democratic governor, House, Senate and high court. The GOP lost both houses of the Legislature in 2004 after spending a session on such issues as gay marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance and the liberal biases of college professors—while the state faced a massive fiscal crisis. ...

As Caldara put it: "Colorado is, in fact, the test tube of how to export liberal expansion to the Western states." A moderately conservative state has been turned Blue, Caldara says, because of "the absolute demolishing of what the Right stood for, how the Republican Party turned into something it was never meant to be and went away from Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan ideas."

Of course, Democrats have worked hard to capitalize on the Republicans' carelessness. Liberal groups funded by folks like billionaire Quark founder Tim Gill have turned discontent into votes. And now they have a model to use in the rest of the region.

It's no coincidence that Democrats chose Denver for their convention. When they converge on the Mile High City in five months, they'll be staking their claim to what was once a solidly Red region.

Sager gets one point wrong: the state was not facing a "massive fiscal crisis." We were facing a crisis of political leadership. As I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/10/refccentral.html) reviewed, various Republicans, including Governor Bill Owens, were in fact leading the charge to declare a "crisis" and increase net taxes. While the Democrats were more than happy to support the plan, it gained its momentum precisely because much of the Republican leadership pushed it. Indeed, Bill Owens could be considered the most successful Democratic governor in recent Colorado history.

The Republicans' problem in Colorado is two-fold. One large faction of the GOP is an extension of the religion right. The top two priorities for this faction are to ban abortions and disparage homosexuals. While Coloradans on the whole have not expressed sympathy for gay marriage, neither are they particularly intolerant toward homosexuals, as is the religious right. Having received numerous mailers beating up Republicans over abortion, it's clear to me that the religious right has alienated a great many independent voters.

The other faction of the GOP consists of the pragmatists, the "me-tooers" who approve of the Democratic agenda with "moderate" restraint. What Sager and others fail to see is the connection between the religious right and the pragmatists. By Sager's analysis, the two groups are distinct factions within the GOP competing for dominance and struggling to "fuse." But, in reality, the big-government pragmatists gain intellectual and practical support from the religious right. As I noted in my last article on this matter, the religious right is increasingly supportive of the welfare state, and it is also picking up environmentalist themes. The religious right is slowly merging with—and morphing into—the religious left. That is because the redistribution of wealth is a Christian theme. It is but a short hop to the political redistribution of wealth. The pragmatist wing of the GOP, though it distances itself from the religious right rhetorically, in fact builds upon a partially secularized version of the Christian ethos. In this sense, the religious right establishes the foundation for the big-government right. It is no coincidence that Bush massively expanded the federal government in the name of Christian "compassion."

Matt Welch, the new editor of Reason, indirectly lends support to this thesis in his recent (http://reason.com/news/show/125451.html) article, "When Coalitions Dissolve." Welch is even more pessimistic than Sager:

In Comeback, one of several new whither-the-party books by traumatized Republicans, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum points out that the very Bush policies that fiscal conservatives like him despise—the prescription drug entitlement, the No Child Left Behind Act, campaign finance reform—were overwhelmingly popular among the American people. "On issues from Social Security to healthcare to environmental protection, conservatives find themselves on the less popular side of the great issues of the day," Frum writes.

The solution? Surrender: "There are things only government can do, and if we conservatives wish to be entrusted with the management of the government, we must prove that we care about government enough to manage it well." Republicans should cave on new spending and regulations, says Frum, in exchange for tax cuts. "This is not 1964," he writes. "The ideal under threat today is not the nation's liberty, but the nation's security, its unity, its effectiveness, and... its equality and beauty."

As Sasha Issenberg wrote in a perceptive Boston Globe story last November, "With Republicans no longer preaching suspicion of Washington, a new consensus has emerged, as both parties have come in their ways to stand today for a more robust, aggressive federal government. As a result, Goldwaterism is without a natural home in the two-party system."

As far as these Republicans are concerned, we're all welfare-statists now.

The Republican party, then, has actively alienated those who advocate free markets, voluntarism and individual rights, restrained political spending, and personal freedom within the context of rights.

Yet some continue to hope for a renewal of "fusionism" between the fiscal conservatives and the religious right.

Jessica Peck Corry (http://www.politicswest.com/local_western_politics/22363/mad_voter_whats_western_conservative) writes:

A leading conservative sat down with a libertarian Republican to begin building a bridge toward a united future.

The duo, Jim Pfaff and Sean Duffy, represented opposite ends of the debate on one of 2006's most contentious ballot issues—the ill-fated Referendum I that sought to strengthen legal rights and protections for same-sex partners. Duffy was the public relations guru behind the campaign... Pfaff, president and CEO of the Colorado Family Institute, served as the effort's lead opponent. ...

And Pfaff, while frequently identified by his ties to Focus On The Family's Dr. James Dobson and his commitment to "life" issues, says he wants to work with Duffy and other libertarian Republicans to begin rebuilding the Republican Party in the West after years of Democratic gains. ...

Over pints of Guinness, the two tell the story of the mutual admiration for each other. If this was your snapshot of the Republican Party's two leading ideological factions, you'd have to wonder: What's the problem?

The problem is huge. Republicans are facing an identity crisis of immense proportions. And social issues like gay rights and abortion are only the beginning. With George W. Bush at the helm, the federal government has maxed out our collective credit cards to continue funding the expansion of entitlement programs and an unpopular—but difficult to end—war. ...

Bob Schaffer, a former Republican Congressman from Fort Collins, is taking on sitting U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs. ... [Schaffer] fought consistently for a balanced budget, introducing a constitutional amendment to require such. Also a strong supporter of innovative education reform, Schaffer had the courage to vote against the unfunded mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act...

Conservatives and libertarians should follow the lead of Pfaff and Duffy, putting aside their differences on social issues to elect viable candidates dedicated to protecting the working families and small business owners who suffer most when government spending expands.

Yet, as much as I appreciate Duffy's commitment to personal freedoms, the religious right is not simply going to "put aside" its political support for banning abortion, restricting homosexuals, imposing censorship, and controlling personal behaviors. Indeed, much of the religious right is currently (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/fertilized-egg-is-not-person.html) trying to define a fertilized egg as a a person.

And as much as I appreciate Schaffer's commitment to restrained federal power in some areas, the fact remains that even in these areas he's fighting against the Republican current. Moreover, while Udall has (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) clearly endorsed the separation of church and state, Schaffer has failed to do so.

Indeed, as the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/29/udall-vs-schaffer-agreeing-to-disagree/) summarizes, "Schaffer regularly voted to restrict abortion rights and gay rights, and promote religious themes..." OnTheIssues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Bob_Schaffer.htm) lists a number of Schaffer's congressional votes, including the following:

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Voted NO on... medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
* Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
* Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

I do not see how these issues can simply be set aside.

Writing for Backbone America, John Andrews's conservative forum, Krista Kafer (http://backboneamerica.net/2008/03/31/memo-to-my-libertarian-friends/) writes:

[Caldara observed] that big-government Republicans... are the real enemy of conservatism, not social conservatives. I hope other libertarians were listening. ...

[O]n our differences (gay marriage and drug legalization just to pick two), I actually have some logical reasons for my beliefs. We could discuss them and possibly find common ground or at least an appreciation for each other's reasons. Calling me a bigot who wants to deprive people of civil rights isn't exactly a thoughtful response to my concerns about the impact of gay marriage. My primary objection to same-sex marriage is a libertarian one—it suppresses dissenting views. The state of Massachusetts shut down a Catholic adoption agency because it did not adopt to same-sex couples (the agency does not even receive government money). The same thing has happened in England. In Colorado, gay couples are free to call themselves "married," live together, have children, etc. Their status is recognized by those who agree with their lifestyle. State intervention in favor of these unions would force anyone who does not agree to shut down their business or organization. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

On drug legalization, I sympathize with cancer victims and believe strongly that if marijuana helps them they should have as much of it as they need. ... The average pot smoker is... the guy who is unemployed or underemployed who uses me, the taxpayer, as his health insurance provider. ... How much of my taxpayer money goes to health care, food, housing, treatment programs, and other services for potheads, meth addicts, junkies and crackheads?

... We need each other. If we only want to work with people with whom we agree 100% of the time, it's going to be a small crowd, powerless against the proponents of big government control.

The Cato Institute speaker that night predicted a mass of libertarians going over to Obama. Great idea if you want to work with people who are diametrically opposed to everything you've worked for all your life. National health care, high taxes, adding a gazillion more government programs to an already behemoth federal government—yep, that's compatible with libertarian thought.

If you want to jump ship out of spite, you might end up in the water with the sharks. Or, we can work together. Your call.

Yet Kafer offers no solid grounds for fusionism.

While some on the religious right sincerely advocate limited federal power, most do not. The overlap between "big-government Republicans" and the religious right is huge.

On the issue of gay marriage, I am not familiar with the details of the role of the Catholic church in adoption. If we're talking about parents who entrust the care of their children to the Catholic church, then the church should indeed have the ability to set adoption policy for those children, as agents of the parents. That issue is entirely separable from the matter of gay marriage (and domestic partnership). However, Sager was not merely referring to the religious right's opposition to gay marriage when he applied the term bigotry to the religious right; he was referring to the unceasing condemnations of homosexuality by the religious right.

It is telling that Kafer endorses the drug war on welfare-statist grounds. Her claims about the drug war are the opposite of the truth—it is the drug war itself that exacerbates social harms—but even if she were correct in her factual claims she would, if committed to liberty, advocate the repeal of welfare, not the expansion of political controls because of the collectivized costs of welfare.

Finally, Kafer's comments about "national health care" and "high taxes" hardly justify support for the GOP. It is true that many Republicans are marginally better than many Democrats regarding health policy. However, various Republicans, including Mitt Romney and Bob Beauprez, endorse mandated insurance. Republican George Bush massively expanded medical entitlements. And Republican Bill Owens instituted the Colorado Healthcare Commission, which rejected a free-market proposal in favor of plans to massively expand the state's role in medicine. The Republicans merely offer a slower road to socialized medicine. So far as taxes go, the Republicans are the ones who handed us Referendum C, (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750) and "President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson."

The problem is not jumping ship to face the sharks. The problem is that the sharks are already in the boat. At least Democratic socialist sharks don't bait the waters with the rhetoric of liberty. And, in a few key areas, some Democrats are actually serious about liberty. The GOP increasingly offers the worst of both worlds: economic controls combined with restrictions of individual liberty. For the time being, I'll take my chances in the open waters, unaffiliated, until the U.S. Liberty sails again.

'You Have No Right to Be Here'

April 8, 2008

A state legislator told an atheist at a public hearing, "You have no right to be here!"

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-change_atheist_bd06apr06,1,4016432.story) reports (via (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/get_out_of_here_atheists.php) Pharyngula via Mike at Obloggers):

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous... it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat... You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

Sherman, a Green candidate with whom I no doubt disagree on many issues, relates the following about the story at his (http://www.robsherman.com/) web page:

On Wednesday, April 2nd (my 55th birthday), I testified in Springfield before the House State Government Administration Committee. My testimony was that Governor Blagojevich's plan to donate one million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago is unconstitutional. For background, see the March 4th update, below. Representative Monique Davis responded for the committee. She accused me of hating god. She said that the state should donate the million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church because the people of Illinois believe that there is a god. At a time when we are in the midst of a decades-long pervasive epidemic of Roman Catholic priests raping America's children, Representative Davis said that I was a danger to the children of Illinois because I tell them that there is no god. She said that I had no right to inform children of that perspective. She then ordered me out of the witness chair, screaming, repeatedly, "Get out of that seat," because I'm an atheist. Made me feel like Rosa Parks, who also was told, "Get out of that seat," and arrested when she didn't give up her seat on the bus to Whitey. Now that [African Americans] like Representative Monique Davis have political power, it seems that they have no problem at all with discrimination, just as long as it isn't them who are being discriminated against. On the 40th anniversary, today, of his murder, I'm sure that my boyhood hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been appalled at Rep. Davis' bigotry. Eric Zorn wrote a column, yesterday, about the exchange between Rep. Davis and myself. His column is complete with both a printed transcript of part of the exchange between Rep. Davis and me, as well as a link to an audio recording of most of the exchange. Here is a link to (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/rep-monique-dav.html) Eric Zorn's column. Here is a direct link to the (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/files/DAVIS.mp3) audio recording, courtesy of Eric Zorn...

In this story, Sherman's shrill web comments and his political views are irrelevant; he has as much right to testify at a public hearing as anyone. Needless to say, any legislator who told someone of any religious faith to "get out of that seat" would gain instant national infamy.

As an aside, though, apparently the church in question burned down, and the subsidy was intended to help rebuild the church. I have to wonder why this wasn't covered by insurance. In my view, the government has no business subsidizing the rebuilding of any private facility that the government did not itself destroy.

Birth Tragedy Seen as Divine

April 9, 2008

In the industrial world, we know that birth defects are caused by some combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Associated Press (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/08/2-faced-baby-worshipped-goddess/) reported that a baby born in Saini Sunpura, India, "Lali, apparently has an extremely rare condition known as craniofacial duplication, where a single head has two faces."

If the infant had been born in the U.S., she and the family would have received sympathy, understanding, and assistance. In India, the infant "is being worshipped as the reincarnation of a Hindu goddess, her father said today."

Lali has caused a sensation in the dusty village of Saini Sunpura, 25 miles east of New Delhi. When she left the hospital, eight hours after a normal delivery on March 11, she was swarmed by villagers, said Sabir Ali, the director of Saifi Hospital. ...

Rural India is deeply superstitious and the little girl is being hailed as a return of the Hindu goddess of valor, Durga, a fiery deity traditionally depicted with three eyes and many arms.

In a way I can understand the mythology; the tragedy is given a positive angle, and the family and infant are saved from social shunning. I can imagine other societies in which the birth might have been seen as the work of the Devil. But far better to live in a world of science and advanced medicine, in which birth defects are minimized and in some cases correctable.

The Hindu myth is not entirely without a political slant; the AP adds: "'I am writing to the state government to provide money to build the temple and help the parents look after their daughter,' [Village chief Daulat] Ram said."

Bailey Squishes on Health Mandates

April 9, 2008

Recently I had the opportunity to meet the charming and well-read Ron Bailey of Reason magazine. We briefly discussed his 2004 (http://www.reason.com/news/show/29303.html) article that advocates an individual mandate for health insurance. While Bailey does some great work for Reason, he is completely wrong on the matter of health mandates. While his article is dated by magazine standards, the issue is very much alive; for example, the somewhat market-friendly Rocky Mountain News just (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/06/health-care-reform-for-grown-ups/) endorsed mandates this past weekend. So, in refuting Bailey's case for mandates, I mean to discredit mandates generally (though of course my comments here are limited in scope).

Bailey makes three broad mistakes.

First, Bailey commits what I'll call the "Wonk's Fallacy." That is, he concocts the best possible policy to implement a mandate, but he ignores or peers past the real-world political process, which is dominated by ideological politicians (usually with redistributionist sentiments), high-priced lobbyists, special-interest groups, and accidents common to sausage-grinding.

The Rocky does the same thing. It editorializes:

Two aspects of SB 217 give us pause. First, it includes an individual mandate, requiring every uninsured Coloradan who is not enrolled in a government program to purchase coverage. But we can live with this so long as value benefit plans are indeed viable and available at modest costs.

That's a bit like saying one can live with socialism, so long as it is a "viable" sort of socialism.

In the real world, policies are subject to political manipulation and unintended consequences. For example, Paul Hsieh, a Colorado doctor, has compiled (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/labels/MA.html) various stories about the problems with the Massachusetts plan, which, as a combination of mandates and expanded welfare, is in some ways similar to the plan proposed for Colorado. Moreover, as Michael Tanner (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/tanner-defends-liberty-in-medicine.html) pointed out during his recent trip to Colorado, mandates are in fact continually subject to special-interest group pressure to expand the scope of what's mandated.

Bailey's second major error is more fundamental. His case for mandates explicitly rests on the forcible redistribution of wealth as an allegedly unalterable political "fact." And his case implicitly grants that it is the state's responsibility to ensure that people obtain health care. Once that case is granted, the free-market position is lost. Completely socialized medicine is inevitable, until and unless somebody effectively makes a principled case for liberty in medicine. (Thankfully, Hsieh, writing with Lin Zinser, has made just (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) such a case, but it remains to be seen whether their efforts can overcome the widespread capitulation by the sunshine friends of liberty.)

In order to keep us off the fast road to socialized medicine, Bailey has placed us on the slow road to socialized medicine.

Bailey's third main problem is that, by pushing mandates, he de-emphasizes the true cause of existing problems in modern medicine: decades of political interventions. The reason that health care is a problem today is that it has already been largely socialized. For details, see the article by Zinser and Hsieh. To make insurance more available, what politicians can and should do is remove the political controls that have made health insurance too expensive for many people to afford.

Now that I've summarized the major issues, I'll go through some of Bailey's specific points.

Bailey begins his article by quoting a poll showing that "62 percent of the respondents favored a universal, government-run medical insurance program." I don't know what the polling would show today. But such polls are irrelevant for deciding which policies are, in fact, based on individual rights and which would therefore achieve good medicine in practice. It is the job of friends of the market to move public opinion, not sell out their principles to it. Moreover, very often people's opinions are "soft," in that people can be swayed by solid arguments. Unfortunately, Bailey's approach is more likely to move public opinion even further in the direction of socialized medicine.

Bailey writes, "[T]he increasingly successful campaigns to privatize Social Security and expand school vouchers suggest a way out: mandatory private health insurance."

I have no wish to reiterate (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/socseclinks.html) my case against so-called "privatized" Social Security here. But I will point out that, when the government forces you to buy something and therefore tightly controls what it is you can buy, the product is in a fundamental sense not "private." Similarly, if the government forced parents to pay for schools of the government's choice, those schools would not be "private." When the government forces you to buy investments, insurance, education, or whatever, those items are not "private" in the sense of existing in a free market. They are merely socialized by another means. In common libertarian parlance, such government controls are counted as fascistic rather than as communistic, with socialism remaining the broader category.

Bailey then conducts a very interesting discussion of the problems in medicine and part of the history of political controls. Bailey also notes that one reason that health care has become more expensive is that doctors can do so much more to help people:

As William B. Schwartz, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, notes in his 1998 book Life Without Disease: The Pursuit of Medical Utopia, "In 1950 costs of health care were remarkably low, because, for a large percentage of patients, doctors really couldn't do much. People spent relatively little on health care (only 4.4 percent of gross domestic product) and got what they paid for—very few useful diagnostic tests or effective treatments." In 1950 there were no polio, measles, or hepatitis vaccines; no open heart surgeries or pacemakers; no organ transplants; few cancer chemotherapy agents; no MRI or CAT scans; and no drugs for ulcers, high blood pressure, or arthritis.

Bailey also explains the fundamental problem with employer-paid insurance, which is the direct result of tax distortions: "'Everybody thinks they're spending somebody's else's money,' explains Robert Helms, a health care scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

Bailey laments, "Unfortunately, there is no prominent political or intellectual figure on the national scene offering a comprehensive free-market alternative to socialized medicine."

Well, no, political figures tend not to advocate free-market alternatives when the self-proclaimed advocates of free markets themselves endorse socialism. Yet, in Colorado, a very small coalition has been successful at making real free-market reforms a noticeable part of the public debate. Had Bailey fought for liberty rather than for socialism in 2004, today free markets would have had a better chance. Instead, today we have to waste our time fighting our "allies."

Bailey offers his main case for mandates:

Why not just tell Americans they are responsible for buying their own health insurance from now on? If people couldn't pay for medical care, either through insurance or out of pocket, they wouldn't get it. "After people begin to notice the growing pile of bodies by emergency room entrances," Tom Miller wryly suggests, "they will quickly get the message and go get medical coverage."

But that's not going to happen, says Mark Pauly, a health care economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school. "Americans don't want to see their neighbor dying bleeding in the street," he says. ...

Since it's unlikely that Americans will allow their improvident neighbors to expire without medical care in the streets, is there a politically palatable alternative that can preserve and expand private medicine in the United States? Yes: mandatory private health insurance.

There are two main problems with Bailey's analysis. First, the options are not binary: either pay or don't pay at the time of service. A third option is to require people who get care to pay for it over time. Second, Bailey here completely ignores the legitimate role of voluntary charity, which can come from health-care providers as well as from individual donors and organizations. Notably, voluntary charity is much more likely to discriminate between the moochers and the truly needy and thus to encourage independence rather than dependence.

Bailey discusses health-savings accounts, shifting away from the employer-pay system, and "privatizing" Medicaid and Medicare, but those reforms are not and should not be tied to mandates.

Bailey closes, "The proposal for mandatory health insurance offers a way to maintain our private system, expand consumer choice, lower costs, and allow medical progress to continue." Bailey's claim is exactly wrong: the proposal for mandatory health insurance undermines liberty in medicine and paves the road to socialized medicine.

If we value our health and our freedom, what we need is liberty in medicine—and allies wiling to advocate liberty rather than statism masquerading as privatization.

'Only' 90 Million Islamic Supporters of 9/11?

April 11, 2008

We can now rest peacefully, knowing that only around 90 million Islamists "identified with the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C." See? No problem. The "Religion of Peace" has everything under control.

The figure comes from Jerd Smith's Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/07/boulder-hosts-60th-think-fest-this-week/) write-up of the 60th Annual Conference on World Affairs in Boulder:

Now head of the non-partisan Middle East Institute, [Wendy] Chamberlin [former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan] was the first female U.S. ambassador appointed to a post in a Muslim country and she was in Pakistan on Sept. 11.

Chamberlin's mission Monday is to give World Affairs conference-goers a bit of a primer on Muslims. ...

"It is absolutely necessary that we try to reshape our relations with the Middle East and the larger Muslim world," she says. "We need to acknowledge the Muslim world is a very diverse community. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Arab's are only a small minority. The most populous Muslim country isn't even in the Middle East. It's Indonesia."

"Too often our politicians focus on one extremely small fraction of the Muslim community, the militant jihadists. We don't talk enough about the mainstream Muslims who are most decidedly not violent, not radical and not extremists."

Key facts: International polls conducted worldwide indicate that 93 percent of Muslims abhorred what happened on 9/11, while only a small minority, 7 percent, identified with the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington D.C.

"What are Muslims like?" Chamberlin asked. "They're like most Americans. They're family people. They practice their faith. Most are young (under 30). They want better education. They want jobs. The polls show the majority want to improve law and order and they want to promote democratic ideals in their own political systems," she said.

"The clear majority also want legal rights for women. For millions of Muslims their religion is a religion of peace and they're outraged at the notion that their mosques are used for violence."

Ah, how comforting that a mere 7 percent of all Muslims approve of the slaughter of Americans.

Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/09/carroll-everyday-people/) replied:

[I]f someone told you that a suicide bomber just blew himself up along with 30 customers in a London bank lobby, it would be reasonable for you to strongly suspect that the terrorist was Muslim.

It would be reasonable, moreover, even if you readily agreed, as I do, that most Muslims are like most people everywhere and want nothing more than lives of peace.

Unfortunately, the figures are not as rosy as Chamberlin would have us believe.

In his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris reviews statistics collected by the Pew Research Center in 2002 (see pages 124-26). Here was the question:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.... Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

Responses for "often" or "sometimes" justified ranged from 73 percent in Lebanon to 13 percent in Turkey. However, as Harris points out, if the responses for "rarely justified" are added to the mix, the figures for those who believe that "suicide bombing in defense of Islam" is "ever justifiable" rises to 82 percent in Lebanon and 20 percent in Turkey. The next-highest response rate is Pakistan with 38 percent.

The figures for Indonesia, which Chamberlin specifically mentions, are 27 percent ("often" or "sometimes") and 43 percent ("often," "sometimes," or "rarely.")

No matter how one slices the figures, a huge minority of Muslims worldwide—at least scores of millions of people—think it's a good idea to slaughter innocents in the name of their religion.

Comment by Andrew Dalton: There is one thing that I always bring up when confronted with the "just an extremist minority" claim: the fact that human history is not an election, and in fact ideologically committed minorities direct the course of ideas and events. "Moderates" are the ones who shut up and go along, regardless of their number.

CO to Adopt MA Health Disaster?

April 11, 2008

Welcome to Colorful... Massachusetts?

The Massachusetts health mandates have been a disaster. As Paul Hsieh, MD, (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2008/04/hsieh-oped-on-mandatory-health.html) summarizes:

The state of Massachusetts has already imposed a similar plan of mandatory health insurance on its residents for over a year now, and it is failing badly. Like Senator Hagedorn's proposal, the Massachusetts plan requires all residents to purchase health insurance, with state subsidies for lower income residents.

But rather than creating a utopia of high-quality affordable health care, the result has been the exact opposite—skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality health care.

Hsieh has (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/labels/MA.html) compiled additional news and comments about Massachusetts.

Ah, but this time, socialized medicine will work, even though it has failed in every other state and nation that has tried it.

Naturally, Colorado's big newspapers are falling all over themselves to praise our political masters. I already (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/bailey-squishes-on-health-mandates.html) mentioned the Rocky Mountain News's support for Hagedorn's scheme. And The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8868540) editorializes:

The bill by Sen. Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, and Reps. Ann McGihon, D-Denver and Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs... [is] aimed at providing the foundation for universal health care coverage in 2010. It's patterned after the path blazed by Massachusetts under Gov. Mitt Romney by mandating health insurance for citizens who now lack it, just as motorists are required to have automobile liability insurance.

Failure to purchase such insurance could subject residents to a penalty on their state income tax. The state would subsidize poor people.

Even though the Rocky pretends that Hagedorn is offering an alternative to the "208" Healthcare Commission, Hagedorn's plan is essentially the same plan my dad and I criticized (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/04/club20.html) a year ago. (In the same article, we pointed out why mandated health insurance is not comparable to mandated auto insurance.)

But do not think that this socialistic scheme is the work of Democrats alone; as the Post points out, Hagedorn's bill includes a Republican sponsor. And, as the following voting tally indicates, Republican Shawn Mitchell helped pass the bill out of committee [original image showed a 5 to 1 vote with Mitchell, Sandoval, Tochtrop, Boyd, and Hagedorn voting yes, and Schultheis voting no].

Mitchell is the same Republican who (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/mitchell-defends-republicans.html) claimed just last month:

A bad market vote doesn't make it a lie for many Republicans, including this one, to claim the mantle of market supporter. We may be imperfect. It would be a lie to claim otherwise. But for willingness to embrace, defend, and advocate the functioning of free markets, Republicans are the only team in town.

But if a Republican will vote for a bill to force every Coloradan to purchase politically-approved health insurance, then no political control is out of bounds. Such Republicans support free markets in roughly the same way that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports Israel or cancer supports human health.

[June 23, 2008 Update: I understand that Mitchell passed the bill out of committee on condition that it was amended to remove some of the more objectionable parts, and then he voted against the bill on the floor. Mitchell has not responded to my further inquiries on the matter.]

Here's the upshot to Hagedorn's scheme. It's payola time for politically-connected insurance companies. What better than for politicians to force every person in the state to buy your product? This means that young, healthy workers will get screwed twice: once with higher taxes and again through higher insurance premiums.

The entire reason that health insurance is too expensive for many to afford is that politicians have systematically undermined the insurance market through tax distortions and a host of direct controls. But, rather than repeal the controls that created the problems, these politicians are intent on imposing yet more controls.

The only good news about the proposal is that it would not take effect until 2010, giving young people who don't think it's their duty to fund everybody else's health care, and doctors who don't want to work under the thumb of idiot bureaucrats, a chance to look for work in other states.

Anti-Abortion Group Sues Google

April 12, 2008

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/google-ads-on-ann-coulter.html) pointed out, Google's ad policies are completely arbitrary and in fact violated by Google itself. I wrote,

If Google flagrantly violates its own stated policy for ads, then clearly that particular policy is meaningless. However, if, as one of the comments on an earlier post alleges, Google has pulled its ads from another web page because of that page's arguments, is Google opening itself up to potential legal action?

However, I'm not sure that a recent law suit has much merit. Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348869,00.html) reports:

A Christian group in Britain is suing Google over the search engine's alleged refusal to place an ad related to abortion.

According to the Christian Institute, the text ad would have popped up on the right side of a user's screen whenever the word "abortion" was searched for or prominently appeared.

It would have read: "UK abortion law: Key views and news on abortion law from The Christian Institute. www.christian.org.uk". ...

Google rejected the ad with the statement, "Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content,'" according to the Christian Institute's press release.

The Christian Institute counters that "Google is happy to allow adverts for non-religious sites with views on abortion," and is taking the Internet giant to court on grounds of religious discrimination. ...

Searches for "abortion" on both the American and British Google Web sites bring up ads for abortion providers, but none to political, advocacy or religious groups on either side of the issue.

Both Google sites, however, include an ad for StandUpGirl.com, a Web site aimed at talking teenage girls out of having abortions.

I'll try to briefly untangle the issue. A suit based on "religious discrimination" is illegitimate. Google has property rights, and thus it has the right to set whatever ad policies it deems fit. To take a local example, some Colorado publications refuse to run ads for firearms.

The potential problem involves contract. Is Google effectively making a contradictory offer to would-be ad purchasers? If Google is simultaneously saying, through its actions, that ads about abortion are fine, but then indicating that certain ads about abortion are forbidden, that could be a problem. Then the issue would be that people spend their resources to set up ads with Google that Google may then arbitrarily deny. Unfortunately, I was not able to locate Google's policies regarding ads pertaining to abortion.

What this is not is a free-speech issue. If Google refuses to do business with certain advertisers, Google is not thereby violating free speech. Freedom of speech protects people from government censorship; it does not impose a duty on some to publicize the speech of others. Indeed, forcing one party to promote the views of others violates that party's freedom of speech.

However, it might be a fairness issue. Google ought not arbitrarily deny some ads but not others or impose contradictory standards.

Moreover, it seems to me that in the rough-and-tumble world of the internet, it's a bit silly for a large company to refuse to do business with Christians with an anti-abortion agenda. I go back to the Ann Coulter test: if Google will let Coulter display Google ads, can Google reasonably exclude others with less contentious views?

Hillman Defends Liberty in Medicine

April 12, 2008

(http://markhillman.com/) Mark Hillman, a former Republican state senator, has (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/12/latest-health-reform-will-backfire/) come out with an excellent critique of a new legislative proposal to impose Massachusetts-style health controls in Colorado. The measure, Senate Bill 217, would force everyone to buy politically-approved health insurance and expand health welfare. I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/co-to-adopt-ma-health-disaster.html) lambasted the proposal yesterday.

In a Speakout for the Rocky Mountain News, Hillman explains:

In calling for health insurance companies to design "value benefit plans" to provide a low-cost insurance alternative, the bill says that the state "shall not specify benefits or other details" of those plans. Just two paragraphs later, however, the bill stipulates a dozen mandated benefits or other details that value benefit plans must include.

Essentially, insurers are prohibited from proposing anything that's remotely innovative. They are commanded not to "interfere with the existing small-group market" but are locked into the same rating criteria that has devastated that market for most of the last decade. ...

SB 217 does change the existing health-care market in one dramatic respect, by signaling to insurance companies that state government is ready to force its incorrigible citizens to buy health insurance, even if it's unaffordable.

The bill calls for "a requirement that all Coloradans obtain health insurance either individually or through their employer" and provides for enforcement "though the state tax laws."

Rather than allow insurers to offer new choices or allow consumers to obtain coverage across state lines where Colorado's draconian regulations aren't strangling the market, legislators prefer to penalize taxpayers for the audacity of refusing to buy insurance that costs too much.

Hillman's analysis is right on. I can only hope his former colleagues are paying attention. It's nice to see that a leader of Hillman's stature—and a party man to boot—takes seriously liberty in Colorado.

Nuts and Bolts of 217 Anti-Health Bill

April 13, 2008

I've been (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/hillman-defends-liberty-in-medicine.html) writing about Senate Bill 217, which seeks to impose Massachusetts-style health controls in Colorado, so I thought it was a good time to pull a few quotes from the bill itself. Colorado's legislative bills can be downloaded at the (http://www.leg.state.co.us/) state legislature's web page. Click on "All Versions," and download the confusingly labeled "Preamended" version. This version of the bill states, "This Unofficial Version Includes Committee Amendments Not Yet Adopted on Second Reading." Additional versions of the bill may appear as it moves through the legislature.

Section 1(e) states that the bill would create "a balanced partnership between private and public sectors." Translation: politicians are going to control the health-insurance market to an even greater extent than they do already.

Section 2(a)(I) creates a new commission, a "panel of expert advisors appointed by the govern," composed of actuaries and insurance insiders, which "shall prepare a request for proposals to be issued to health insurance companies." The companies will be asked to describe "Value Benefit Plans," or VBPs. Section 2(b) describes how the VBPs are supposed to work. They must include "benefits for primary and preventive care participation in wellness programs, and incentives for plan participants to engage in healthier behavior."

In other words, the VBPs will be high-cost, all-encompassing plans, not real insurance with high deductibles, like my wife and I currently purchase.

Here's a big one: subsection VIII specifies that VBPs must take all comers, regardless of health, and charge everybody of the same age and region the same rate. In other words, the plans would force some people to subsidize the health expenses of others.

And here's the penultimate requirement: XII states that the plans must "assume that all Colorado residents would be required to purchase health insurance."

But Section 3 pushes the real work onto the 2010 legislature. "[T]he governor may reject proposals..." "If the governor recommends legislation and the general assembly chooses to pursue legislation..."

To quote the infamous Jayne Cobb, I'm smelling a lot of "if" coming off of this plan.

But, "if" the 2010 legislature chooses to screw Coloradans with more political controls of medicine, then it will impose mandates and a "mechanism to enforce" mandates "through the state tax laws." The insurance plans would, of course, be subject to political approval. What the bill does not mention is that the plans would be subject to continual special-interest pressure to keep forcing up premiums.

Nor does the bill mention that the reason health insurance is too expensive for many people to afford is that politicians have for decades been undermining the insurance market with tax distortions, forced wealth transfers, and reams of mandates. SB 217 would impose more of the same.

Michael Medved's Anti-Atheist Bias

April 14, 2008

If somebody claimed that a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Mormon, or member of any other mainstream religion, was not qualified to hold political office merely by virtue of that religious affiliation, regardless of the broader moral and political beliefs and statements of the candidate, the critic's claims would be laughed off as silly prejudice. While it's true that Mitt Romney's Mormon religion hurt his candidacy, it's also true that Mike Huckabee's slights against Mormonism hurt Huckabee's candidacy.

But, in the world of Christian political apologetics, Michael Medved can grotesquely misrepresent the nature of atheism and claim with a straight face that no atheist should be elected president. Medved (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/04/09/americans_are_right_to_resist_an_atheist_as_president?page=1) writes:

Actually, there's little chance that atheists will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the existence of God. An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.

I agree that there's little chance of an atheist being elected as president any time in the near future. But Medved's reasons for why that's a good thing are absurd.

Medved's first error, contained in the quoted paragraph above, is to presume that atheism is a unifying doctrine; atheists, by his lights, recognize and support "their own." But atheism is not an ideology. It does not indicate what a person believes. It indicates only one thing that a person does not believe. I have more in common with many Christians than I do with some atheists. I could develop a long list of Christians that I would support politically over a list of particular atheists.

So what are Medved's three reasons?

First, he claims that an atheist president would suffer "hollowness and hypocrisy at state occassions." "For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation—the Indians in Massachusetts?" Yet I've heard atheists give very powerful, highly moving talks. On the topic of Thanksgiving, Craig Biddle (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5062) writes, "Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend." While Biddle's strong criticisms of religion would not be appropriate for a president's speech, his answer regarding whom should be thanked could be appropriately adapted to a presidential address. To take another example, Alex Epstein has (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13587&news_iv_ctrl=1502) written a moving tribute to America's veterans.

Second, Medved claims, an atheist could not connect with the people. Medved writes:

[E]mbrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn't show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does. ... A chief executive who publicly discards the core belief in God that drives the life and work of most of his countrymen can never achieve that sort of connection. A president with a mandate doesn't have to be a regular church-goer, or even a convinced believer; but he can't openly reject the religious sensibility of nearly all his predecessors and nearly all his fellow citizens. A leader who touts his non-belief will, even with the best of intentions, give the impression that he looks down on the people who elected him.

But holding that a person's belief in God is unwarranted is not the same thing as "looking down" on the person. For example, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and yet she held and expressed enormous respect for the American "sense of life" and for the common sense often displayed by the American public. Indeed, often Rand was most critical of the atheistic (and socialistic) elite.

The difference between atheists and religionists is, in this context, hardly more significant than the difference among peoples of different religions or different political ideologies. For example, as an atheist, I think that Catholics are wrong to believe in God. But when I was a Protestant, I was taught as a child that Catholics will burn for all eternity in Hell. (Only some people in my church held that view.) Obviously, the tensions between people of different religions can be much more severe than the tensions between atheists and religionists. To take another example, the differences between Barack Obama and conservative Christians are enormous.

Finally, Medved argues, atheists cannot win the war against Islamist terrorism. "[T]he ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing." Here Medved makes two errors. First, he assumes that atheists believe in nothing, which is ridiculous. Again, atheism does not define one's positive beliefs. Second, Medved supposes that religionists are better-equipped to take on the terrorists. But Bush has failed to stop terrorist advances precisely because of his faith-based war, which places altruistic nation-building ahead of American defense. Numerous (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_islamic_terrorism) publications by the Ayn Rand Institute point to the problems with Bush's approach and the path to a rational alternative.

Americans should not elect an atheist because he or she is an atheist, any more than Americans should elect a Christian because he or she is a Christian. Instead, Americans should elect somebody who understands the nature of individual rights and is prepared to defend the rights of every American, regardless of religious belief.

Comment by Andrew Dalton: There is a reason why George W. Bush has been so ineffective against Islamic terrorists: it's because he worships the same Bronze Age desert sky-demon! The issue of fighting Islamic fanaticism is particularly important, and it needs to be turned back against Michael Medved and other religionists when they try to invoke homegrown faith as a weapon against Islam.

Students Plan Empty-Holster Protest

April 14, 2008

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8906058) reports:

John Davis, a 30-year-old University of Colorado at Colorado Springs senior and a member of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, said students at CU-Colorado Springs and CU-Boulder will join a national demonstration April 22-25 in which students will wear empty gun holsters. Davis said the display symbolizes that students are "basically defenseless" at school.

The Colorado Springs Gazette (http://www.freecolorado.com/index.htm) editoralizes on the matter (via (http://westandfirm.org/blog/) Paul Hsieh):

[S]tudents at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs want... university officials to lift a dangerous ban on guns that makes the campus vulnerable to suicidal mass murderers and other brands of psychotics that are known to prey on college students. ...

A group of local students have formed the UCCS chapter of "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus." ... This is a matter of public safety and human lives. To a suicidal psycho, a classroom full of unarmed students is opportunity. It's that simple. To forbid trained students from wearing their guns is to set a stage for murder. CU regents should change the policy, immediately, before the blood is on their hands.

Of course, I argue, first, that all educational facilities should be privately owned and funded, and second, that all private establishments have the right to independently set such policies as gun carrying. What would I do if I were running a private college? I would pay for any faculty member who wanted to participate to receive firearms training and acquire a concealed-carry permit and quality handgun. I would also allow qualified, trained students to carry concealed handguns on campus, but I would subject the practice to fairly rigorous rules.

Ritter Signs Blue-Law Repeal

April 14, 2008

Starting July 1, Coloradans will be able to purchase liquor in stores on Sundays. The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/14/ritter-signs-sunday-booze-bill/) reports:

With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Bill Ritter today signed into law a bill that makes Colorado the 35th state to permit liquor stores to open Sunday.

"This is a law whose time has finally come," Ritter said in a statement. "The ban on Sunday sales was an antiquated law that long ago outlived its usefulness or relevance." ...

The new law came about after liquor store owners dropped their long-standing opposition to Sunday sales.

They made the switch to head off legislation that would have allowed grocery and convenience stores to sell full-strength beer and wine. Lawmakers killed that bill in the face of strong opposition from liquor store owners.

So Colorado continues to suffer from a host of political controls on the liquor industry. Liquor stores can't sell food, and grocery stores can't sell anything but 3.2 beer (except in one location per chain). Nor can liquor stores start chains. Also, Sunday car sales continue to be illegal.

But we can buy bottled booze on Sundays. It's not much, but it's something. So, thank you Democrats. While many political issues are arcane and confusing, this one is simple and obvious to the common person. During all of its years in the majority, the Republicans did nothing but fight for the Blue Laws against the interests and liberty of consumers. On this issue, the Republicans left it to the Democrats to score one for economic liberty.

April 18 Update: Penn Pfiffner writes:

In your recent blog dealing with a step toward rolling back the Blue Laws, you said:

"During all of its years in the majority, the Republicans did nothing but fight for the Blue Laws against the interests and liberty of consumers. On this issue, the Republicans left it to the Democrats to score one for economic liberty."

True, in that the legislature never acted successfully through those years. I wanted to bring to your attention, however, that I offered legislation to end the Sunday prohibition on both liquor sales and car sales. The Republican-majority Business Affairs Committee killed the bill. If memory serves, this was sometime during the 59th General Assembly (1993 or 1994).

I appreciate Pfiffner's clarification and his work in the legislature and out.

I was referring to Republicans as a party, not to individual Republicans who sided with economic liberty.

Affirmative Action: Complaining Signer Wasn't Registered

April 15, 2008

Earlier in the month, I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/affirmative-action-vandenberg.html) wrote about claims that petition circulators for an initiative to end racial discrimination (including affirmative action) at the state level used deceit to collect signatures.

I quoted from the complaint sent by Chloe Johnson to the Secretary of State: "... I was approached by a petition circulator who asked me to sign a petition that would end discrimination in Colorado... I questioned this petitioner knowing that we already had laws to prevent this but he told me that they would no longer be effective in the following months."

I noted that, from three formal complaints and various news reports, Johnson offered the "single example of somebody who claims to have signed a petition after hearing deceitful claims from a petition circulator."

Now, it turns out, Johnson was not eligible to sign the petition, because she was not registered to vote.

FaceTheState (http://facethestate.com/articles/democrat-operative-alleging-voter-fraud-never-registered-to-vote) reports:

A Democrat state legislative aide who had claimed to be a victim of voter fraud saw her complaint dismissed after state officials learned that she was not a registered voter.

On February 26, Chloe Johnson filed a complaint with Secretary of State Mike Coffman's office alleging that she was tricked into supporting Amendment 46, also known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot effort designed to end race and gender preferences in government hiring, education, and contracting. The complaint was formally dismissed by the state's Office of Administrative Courts because Johnson never registered to vote.

"I wasn't a registered elector at the time, so they dismissed my case," said Johnson. "I thought I was registered and that I registered last year when I turned 18." ...

Johnson claims that she signed the petition because she believes in "preventing discrimination anywhere," but that after signing it and during the course of her legislative internship with Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, she became outraged when she learned that the initiative would not "end discrimination," but was "in fact a petition for anti-affirmative action." ...

Upset by this revelation, Johnson says she called the office of Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, and requested that her name be removed from the petition. She was instructed to contact Coffman's office about the matter, which she did, leading her to subsequently file a complaint.

So, given that Johnson's claim is bunk, and given that affirmative action is a type of discrimination, I have yet to hear a single, credible, first-hand account of someone who claims to have signed the petition after being deceived.

And this was a story worthy of the attention of the mighty New York Times?

If there is a real problem here, then surely someone can point me to actual evidence showing a problem. I will be happy to post an update just as soon as somebody does that.

Ben Stein's Expelled

April 16, 2008

I sort of like actor Ben Stein, but I think he's taken on more than he can handle with a new documentary that he co-wrote called (http://expelledthemovie.com/) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Judging from the preview available at the film's web page, the documentary is a rather silly defense of "intelligent design," the fancy name for dressed-up creationism.

In a "gotcha" moment, Stein gets "new atheist" Richard Dawkins to admit that he doesn't know how life began. Well, so what? "I don't know how life began, therefore, God, QED." Scientists have been able to determine much of the evolutionary course of life on earth from the fossil record and other evidence. But there is simply no such evidence remaining of the first forms of life, so far as anyone knows. Even if scientists someday manage to create conditions in which life emerges from non-life, that won't prove conclusively that life on earth actually began in just that way. Besides, Christians would merely push God into the new gap: "But who set in motion those original conditions?"

A lack of knowledge does not justify an arbitrary assertion. At one point, people didn't know what caused lightening. "I don't know what causes lightening, therefore, God, QED." (Greg Perkins also (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/03/last-gasp-for-god-of-gaps.html) uses the lightening example.) Before genetic science, people didn't know the mechanism by which evolution worked. At the dawn of humanity, people knew practically nothing. But the fact that knowledge is necessarily limited does not mean that knowledge is flawed or useless, nor does it justify arbitrary leaps beyond knowledge. And arbitrary claims about God also happen to involve logical absurdities and metaphysical impossibilities.

If Matt Barber's rah-rah (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2008/04/14/darwins_kool-aid) review is correct, Dawkins himself entertains the arbitrary:

In one segment, he sits down with Stein for a heart-to-heart. After dancing around several pointed questions about how life began, Dawkins finds himself at a logical impasse with no surplus of sci-fi rhetoric. He's finally forced to concede that, indeed, an intelligent being may have created life on earth. However, that being could not have been "God," but rather, it must have been some organic, alien life form. Of course, that alien life form has to have been a product of "Darwinian evolution."

I have not yet heard the discussion in context. However, Dawkins seems to allow for arbitrary claims. That said, there is an appropriate use of the "alien" example, which is to point out that the advocates of "intelligent design" have a particularly supernatural designer in mind.

Barber also repeats the by-now standard ad hominem attack against atheists:

They don't want to upset the morally relative applecart, which is loosely held together by the notion that we're all just a bunch of monkeys with an instinctive, biological excuse for all our behavioral choices. To them, life's a whole lot easier under the theory of evolution. Without a sovereign Creator to answer to, we get to scoot along and party hearty, free from accountability.

The irony is that Barber's intellectually-dishonest attack occurs in his essay claiming that Christians are persecuted. Barber is simply fibbing when he claims that all atheists are relativists and/or determinists who, in effect, reject God because they want to party.

I call on responsible Christians to discourage the sort of bigoted nonsense that Barber displays here.

Various criticisms of Expelled have sprung up. One (http://www.expelledexposed.com/) web page is devoted to criticizing the film; it also contains a list of publications about it. Colorado Confidential hosts a number of (http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/tag.do?tag=Expelled) articles about the film. Chris Heard (http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=999) points out that various Christians accept evolution as fact. Ad Hoc (http://adhoc.thinkertothinker.com/?p=56) blogs about the film.

The upshot is that Christians devoted to creationism will view the film with a sense of validation. The rest of us will soon forget about it.

Presidential Candidates Play Zero-Sum Games

April 16, 2008

The following article originally (http://gjfreepress.com/article/20080414/OPINION/798399739) was published by Grand Junction's Free Press on April 14, 2008.

Presidential candidates play zero-sum games

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

When you walk into any store and trade your money for a product, often both you and the clerk will say, "Thank you." The reason for this is that, in a voluntary exchange, both parties benefit. The same is true at your job. Employers value the labor of employees and pay for it, while employees value the paycheck and other benefits enough to do the work.

In a free-market system that bars fraud, stops the initiation of force, and protects people's property rights, one person's gain is another person's gain. And when people can count on the legal protection of their property, they invest in new skills, machines, factories, technologies, and other capital. Over time, this raises people's productivity and real wages, leading to a growing economy.

A thief rejects mutually-beneficial exchange. If a hold-up man takes $100 from you by force, then the thief is better off financially for the moment, but you are worse off by the same amount. Such a situation is sometimes called a "zero-sum game." Some people gain at the expense of others.

When a society becomes plagued by zero-sum interactions, the result is economic destruction. To the extent that people fear that the fruits of their labor will be taken from them by force, they stop producing, trading, and investing. For example, look at much of Africa.

Unfortunately, while the United States was founded on the ideals of liberty, government limited to the protection of rights, and secure property, today's presidential candidates actively promote the zero-sum games of political controls.

In his famous speech on race, Barack Obama worried that, for many working people, "opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense." He added, "the path to a more perfect union... requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

But by "investing" Obama does not mean that individuals should be free to invest in their children's education or a company, or even to donate voluntarily to charity. Americans don't need Obama to tell them that getting an education, contracting for quality health care, and saving for the future are good ideas.

No, what Obama means by "investing" is that he wants to take more of your money by force and give it to others, of course with a huge chunk taken out to pay the salaries of bureaucrats.

For example, Obama wants to socialize medicine. That means that you will have to pay through the nose in taxes in order to wait in line to get "free" health care that sucks. (For some of the problems that other countries are experiencing with health care, see Michael Tanner's recent Cato (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272) paper, "The Grass is Not Always Greener.")

Forced welfare, as opposed to voluntary charity, tends to promote dependency and irresponsible behaviors. And tax-funded "investment" in jobs means siphoning money out of the productive economy to reward special interests.

In other words, most of Obama's policies promote zero-sum games, in which some gain at the expense of others.

But it's not like John McCain is much better. Last November, Matt Welch wrote for the Los Angeles Times, "McCain... wants to restore your faith in the U.S. government by any means necessary, even if that requires thousands of more military deaths, national service for civilians and federal micromanaging of innumerable private transactions. He'll kick down the doors of boardroom and bedroom, mixing Democrats' nanny-state regulations with the GOP's red-meat paternalism in a dangerous brew of government activism."

To pick out one of those examples, forcing people to "serve" others (a practice we thought was outlawed in the United States) fails to recognize the benefits of liberty and mutually-beneficial exchanges. In a free society, people are free to give of their time and money to others. But the choice is left to them, and people are not free to forcibly give away the time or money that belongs to somebody else.

McCain asks you to "sacrifice your life" to "a cause greater than yourself." In general, we're opposed to human sacrifices, but especially when a political leader defines how and for what you are to sacrifice yourself. Didn't we already do the century in which political leaders asked their countrymen to sacrifice their lives to the state?

Given McCain's guiding principle of sacrifice, we expect him to be a fair-weather friend—at best—to voluntary, mutually-beneficial, free-market exchanges, despite his occasionally market-friendly rhetoric.

We don't know who will become the next president. But we fear that whoever wins will do his or her damnedest to make sure that the rest of us lose.

Brook: End Tax Social-Engineering

April 17, 2008

Tax season is now behind us. But it's not. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/04/16/yaron-taxes-campaign-oped-cx_ybr_0417yaron.html) points out in an article for Forbes that, with 66,000 pages of tax code controlling our lives, tax day is every day.

After offering numerous examples of the way that the tax code skews incentives, Brook summarizes:

Tax policy works by attaching financial incentives to a long list of values deemed morally worthy. If you want to maximize your wealth come tax time--and who doesn't?--you must look at the world through tax-colored glasses, "voluntarily" adjusting your behavior to suit social norms and thereby qualifying for tax breaks. In this way, the social engineers of tax policy preserve the impression that you're exercising free choice, while they're actually dispensing with your reason and your judgment.

Brook then briefly describes the proper alternative:

Government's job is not to dictate your values but to protect them. In a free country, you choose values and then use your own money as a tool to achieve them. But a value-rigged tax policy reverses this cause and effect--it uses your money against you, bribing you with tax breaks that let you keep some of your earnings in exchange for abandoning your preferred values.

Brook's entire article is worth perusal. Brook's topic is delimited, so he does not touch upon all of the misincentives of the tax code. A huge problem is that high taxes reduce the incentive to produce. Taxes also reduce the division of labor. Work you do for money is taxed, while work you do for yourself is not taxed. Thus, rather than spend their time working in their field of speciality, many people divert some of their time to doing things they don't especially enjoy and aren't particularly good at, such as fixing the car or painting the house. But these are just two more examples of the way that taxes distort incentives. The combined effects are massive.

Darwin Online

April 18, 2008

(http://geekpress.com/) Paul Hsieh has pointed me to an outstanding (http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html) resource: "The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online."

Wow. It's just stunning that such a rich collection of material is available to the public, at no charge. And to think that, when I was a child, the internet did not even exist.

This seems like a good time point out that, on its registered users' page, the (http://www.aynrand.org/) Ayn Rand Institute hosts Keith Lockitch's lecture, "Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution;" see the Complete Video Collection.

Though Darwin is subject to increasingly shrill attacks from the evangelical movement, the rest of us owe him a debt of gratitude for ushering in the modern science of biology.

People Day

April 18, 2008

As some prepare to celebrate Earth Day on April 22, I look forward to celebrating People Day. Yes, the earth is valuable—for people. I love the earth—because I get to live here.

Two great writers recently have taken on environmentalist hysteria.

The first is Vincent Carroll, a major reason why the Rocky Mountain News is the best newspaper in the region. Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/18/carroll-conservation-dreams/) writes:

In the global trajectory of greenhouse emissions, my conservation is meaningless. Yours is, too. What's more, even yours and mine together—even combined with the conservation of every American who takes similar action—is not significant, either. ...

[M]ost of the world's inhabitants are still poor. They want electricity; they want mobility. And fulfilling their aspirations is going to boost greenhouse gases to a degree that utterly dwarfs any possible tempering of our own energy appetites.

Environmentalism is largely a religion because it encourages pointless acts to lighten one's guilt for the moral crime of living on earth. Much recycling is a waste of resources (particularly if we take time, the most important human resource, into account). Corn gas has done nothing to fix global warming, though it has contributed to a (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8967258) global food crisis. People spend thousands of extra dollars to drive hybrid cars—some of which get worse gas mileage than my standard car, and which require more resources to produce. There might as well be an environmentalist (http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm) Rosary.

Carroll concludes:

If there are environmental heroes among us, they are the scientists and technicians who someday figure out how the world can produce much, much more affordable energy—which it is going to need—without adding to greenhouse emissions. In that drama, most of us are fated to be spectators.

Craig Biddle has gone to the (http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2008/04/on-april-22-celebrate-exploit-earth-day_17.asp) next step:

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day. ...

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one's life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off "the goods"; he should leave nature alone, come what may.

[I]f the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, vegetables, fruits, and the like. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

Biddle is criticizing the essence of environmentalism: the view that the earth is intrinsically valuable, apart from the interests of people. Of course, there are self-proclaimed environmentalists who say they want to improve the human condition through better technology. For some environmentalists, this is just a cover, a way to package their statist, anti-human agenda in populist terms. But others seriously think humans should exploit the earth for their own well-being. But the fact that such environmentalists cannot admit to this shows that they are still operating from an essentially religious viewpoint.

Shermer, Lockitch Flunk 'Expelled'

April 19, 2008

Recently I made a few (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/04/ben-steins-expelled.html) comments about the pro-creationist film Expelled, based on the preview. But I didn't realize that the film is horrid, rather than merely stupid.

Gus Van Horn (http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/04/ben-steins-exposed.html) points to an (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html) article by Michael Shermer, who begins:

n 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University... It was with some irony for me, then, that I saw Ben Stein's anti-evolution documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens with [Stein] addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, Associate Provost for Research and Chair of Natural Science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and the staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

This is of particular interest to me, because I went to Pepperdine, too.

Shermer also points out the propagandistic nature of the film:

Even more disturbing than these distortions is the film's other thesis that Darwinism inexorably leads to atheism, Communism, Fascism and the Holocaust. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of religious believers fully accept the theory of evolution, Stein claims that we are in an ideological war between a scientific natural worldview that leads to the gulag archipelago and Nazi gas chambers, and a religious supernatural worldview that leads to freedom, justice and the American way. The film's visual motifs leave no doubt in the viewer's emotional brain that Darwinism is leading America into an immoral quagmire. ... Cleverly edited interview excerpts from scientists are interspersed with various black-and-white clips for guilt by association with: bullies beating up on a 98-pound weakling... East Germans captured trying to scale the Berlin Wall, and Nazi crematoria remains and Holocaust victims being bulldozed into mass graves.

The film, then, is intellectually dishonest, because there is no logical connection between the biological theory of evolution and the various forms of socialism. There is, however, a logical link between religion and and the Inquisition, the Taliban, the Dark Ages, etc.

In addition, today's most enthusiastic champions of economic liberty and individual rights are those inspired by the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which also shows that legitimate moral absolutes can only be established through reason, not religious faith. (Shermer has slammed Rand, but his prejudice against her seems to flow from the Brandens' lies about Rand—(http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR93A) reviewed in James Valiant's Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics—and a basic misunderstanding of the content of Rand's philosophy.)

Speaking of Rand, Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute makes some additional (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=17473&news_iv_ctrl=1221) comments about the film:

"The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school.

"Observe that intelligent design advocates have pumped millions into publicity-seeking, rather than appealing to scientists with facts and logical arguments. They have spent more time at Christian 'apologetics seminars' than scientific conferences, and have attempted to use the courts to force schools to teach their ideas. Now they are hoping to dupe the movie-going public with a film that misrepresents Darwin's theory and the array of facts that support it—just as the makers of Expelled misrepresented the nature of the film in order to bamboozle respected evolutionary scientists into participating in it."

I had been thinking of seeing Expelled for the same reason that I saw two of Michael Moore's films. But I've decided to avoid Expelled for the same reason that I refused to watch Moore's latest: at a certain point, unless a complete viewing is required for a review, I don't want to spend my resources to support intellectual dishonesty.

CCW for School Safety

April 19, 2008

Recently I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/students-plan-empty-holster-protest.html) mentioned an "empty holster" protest planned for the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Diana Hsieh (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/letters_35313___article.html/wednesday_.html) argues in The Gazette that faculty should be allowed to harry concealed handguns:

I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.

If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.

To forbid a trained staff member from carrying a concealed handgun is dangerous and insanely stupid.

Fourth Awakening Getting Sleepy?

April 20, 2008

In a recent (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/index.htm) article for Reason, Ronald Bailey asks, "Is the Fourth Great Awakening finally coming to a close?" He writes:

Perhaps the best evidence that the evangelical phase of the Fourth Great Awakening is winding down is that large numbers of young Americans are falling away from organized religion, just as the country did in the period between the first two awakenings. In the 1970s, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that between 5 percent and 7 percent of the public declared they were not religiously affiliated. By 2006 that figure had risen to 17 percent. The trend is especially apparent among younger Americans: In 2006 nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Americans in their 20s and almost as many (19 percent) of those in their 30s said they were nonaffiliated.

The Barna Group finds that only 60 percent of 16-to-29-year-olds identify themselves as Christians. By contrast, 77 percent of Americans over age 60 call themselves Christian. That is "a momentous shift," the firm's president told the Ventura County Star. "Each generation is becoming increasingly secular."

I disagree with various aspects of Bailey's analysis. For instance, by pitting religious "moralism" against "tolerance," Bailey falls into the common stereotype of secularists as relativists and subjectivists.

While the information Bailey reviews in the quoted material is very interesting, various Objectivists rightly point out that the real battle is not between secularism and religion; it is between reason and unreason. If the younger generations are turning away from organized Christianity in favor of new-age mysticism and environmentalism that attributes to untouched nature intrinsic moral value, that's hardly an improvement. Indeed, Bailey recognizes that "the Fourth Great Awakening might simply be taking a left turn." If, as a society, we swap Christian fervor for crackpot mysticism and socialism, we are merely setting ourselves up for social decay and eventual dictatorship.

Nevertheless, there are some signs of renewed interest in a pro-human, pro-reason philosophy; to take but one (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=17345&news_iv_ctrl=1221) example, sales of Ayn Rand's books "recently reached the mark of 25 million copies."

By the way, Bailey (whom I recently (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/bailey-squishes-on-health-mandates.html) criticized on my other blog) also (http://reason.com/news/show/125988.html) criticizes the pro-creationist film Expelled.

Let Them Drink Gas

April 20, 2008

Environmentalism continues to harm and kill people, especially the world's poor. The corn-gas laws have become a significant contributor to higher food prices and a widespread food shortage. Steven Milloy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.html) writes:

"When millions of people are going hungry, it's a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," an Indian government official told the Wall Street Journal. Turkey's finance minister labeled the use of biofuels as "appalling," according to the paper.

Biofuels have turned out to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. Once touted by the greens and the biofuel industry as being able to reduce the demand for oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels have accomplished neither goal and have no prospect for accomplishing either in the foreseeable future.

The latest research shows that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions on a total lifecycle basis. Add in that taxpayer-subsidized diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to fuel production has contributed to higher food prices and reduced food supply, and biofuels turn out to be nothing less than a public policy disaster.

Did you get that? The environmentalist corn-gas laws not only hurt the world's poor, but they worsen the environment, at least according to the environmentalists' own standards.

This is not merely an accident; this is the way that socialistic policies work. There are two broad problems inherent in the environmentalists' socialist agenda. First, political controls, by forcibly transferring resources and either banning or mandating certain actions, negate people's ability to apply their personal knowledge to the problems that interest them. Second, political wealth transfers and controls necessarily become mired in special-interest warfare, as various groups vie for the transferred resources and for protectionist legislation. Thus, socialistic measures to "protect" the environment are unlikely to do much regarding the environment, but they are very likely to waste resources and reward the corrupt.

Milloy notes that many environmentalists are doing everything within their power to halt energy production:

As the Sierra Club campaigns to shut down our coal-fired electricity capabilities, the Natural Resources Defense Council campaigns to prevent nuclear power from taking its place. ...

Millions in the developing world have died and continue to do so from the greens' campaign against pesticides such as DDT. Nothing less should be expected from their new campaign that threatens global food and energy production.

So long as environmentalism holds that untouched nature is the moral ideal, the necessary consequence is the sacrifice of people to nature. (Preserving tracts of nature for human enjoyment is a different story.) To the extend that environmentalism puts people first, it becomes something other than environmentalism. I don't much mind "environmentalists for nukes," as Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/the-nuclear-option.html) calls them, except that such environmentalists tend to fall into old-school, left-wing politics. Those with a sincere interest in environmental issues and free-market capitalism are an unfortunately (http://www.perc.org/) rare breed.

Comment: The fact that environmentalists are stumbling around looking for something to do, and failing, doesn't mean that there's not a core of truth to some environmental claims. Environmental damage is a genuine negative market externality, with diffuse damages done to people so spread out through time and space that the transaction costs for normal tort and property remedies make those avenues unavailable. Regulation is appropriate to internalize those externalities and to make sure that the damages caused by industry don't outweigh the benefits. Coase doesn't apply in a situation with insurmountable transaction costs. Libertarians should embrace a more rational form of environmentalism whereby people have to pay for the costs they impose on others, and shouldn't just denounce actually existing environmentalism without offering a reasonable alternative. Meanwhile, the biggest problem with biofuel remains the coddling of rural America in the form of ridiculous corn subsidies. Biofuel has a place, but that place will never be determined as long as the market is so distorted. There is not even close to a "corn shortage" right now, just less of a surplus. Food prices are kept absurdly low and excess crops are left to rot year after year because people are paid to grow food there's no market for.

Gore Not Green Enough

April 21, 2008

As the environmentalist frenzy heightens, even Al Gore finds himself targeted for his un-green ways. A (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351943,00.html) story from Fox reports:

Look out, Al Gore... People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says you are refusing to face one very "inconvenient truth."

On Monday, the animal rights organization launched the campaign offsetalgore.com (conveniently timed for Earth Day) in an attempt to counter the effects that they say the former vice president's meat-laden diet has on Mother Nature.

While reps for Gore had no comment, Pop Tarts confirmed with people who have worked with the ex-veep that he loves his steak and sausage, plus he was notorious for chowing down on the almost all-meat Atkins diet during his run for president.

A recent report published by the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates about 40 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks, ships and planes in the world combined.

Of course, PETA is using green paint to coat its animal-rights agenda. PETA wouldn't approve of eating meat even if it reduced greenhouse gas emissions. But vegetarianism is also very much an environmentalist issue. It is telling that Gore, who has done more than perhaps anyone else to publicize global warming, is now the target of environmentalists.

Ultimately, environmentalism holds that it is a moral crime to be alive as a human being, for living as a human being requires the use of natural resources. If environmentalists succeeded at banning meat, then they would go after modern farming, which has vastly expanded the world's population while lifting much of the world out of poverty, for farming too has an environmental impact. It is no coincidence that some environmentalists yearn for the era when the earth's population of humans was a tiny fraction of what it is today, and humans lived barely above the level of the animals around them.

Americans Wary of Atheists

April 22, 2008

The good news for atheists is that they're more popular than Scientologists (a fact for which they can thank God for Tom Cruise). A new (http://www.gallup.com/poll/106516/Americans-NetPositive-View-US-Catholics.aspx) Gallup poll (via Paul Hsieh) reveals U.S. attitudes toward "religious and spiritual groups." While 52 percent of the population views Scientology negatively, a mere 45 percent so view atheism.

I guess the good news is that 54 percent of the population has a positive (13 percent) or neutral (41 percent) view of atheists. I can live with neutral, because, as I've pointed out previously, atheism is not a positive philosophy; it does not indicate what a person does believe. Thus, without knowing the particular views of an atheist, it is impossible to form a positive or negative evaluation of that atheist. (The rest of the categories indicate a philosophical orientation, except the one for "Jews," which can indicate both a religion and an ethnicity.)

For the same reason, the high negative rating is troublesome, as it indicates a prejudice. Just as most Christians in the U.S. are basically good people, so are most atheists. Indeed, some of the finest people I've ever met are atheists. Yet many people view atheists negatively because they are taught by various Christian leaders that atheism is synonymous with socialism, subjectivism, Peter Singer, etc., which is simply not the case. All of the atheists that I personally know support capitalism, individual rights, and objective morality.

Doug, Doug, Doug

April 22, 2008

As a long-time advocate of open immigration, I'm as annoyed as anyone by Douglas Bruce's comments about the "5,000 more illiterate peasants in the state of Colorado" should Marsha Looper's guest-worker bill pass. While I have not read the details of the bill in question, I support the general idea. I first met Looper before she joined the legislature when she was working for property rights, and I respect her all the more for sponsoring such a bill.

However, The Denver Post is having a bit more fun with this than is necessary. Jessica Fender's (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9003612) article, which also includes a link to the video recording of Bruce's comments, carries the headline, "Bruce barred from speaking after 'illiterate' remark." Fine. But, for a time on Monday night, the Post's web page blared, "Bruce calls Mexicans 'illiterate'." That claim is not accurate.

It's obviously not true that workers from Mexico are illiterate as a group, though I suppose a fraction of them are. I suspect that migrant workers are less-well educated than average citizens of both Mexico and the U.S. I've also met Mexicans—both in Mexico and in the U.S.—who are a lot smarter and better educated than either Bruce or me. Moreover, I suspect that a greater fraction of immigrants from Mexico are literate in two languages relative to the native U.S. population. However, while, according to the CIA's World Factbook, 99 percent of the (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) U.S. population is literate, only 91 percent of the (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html) Mexican population is so.

But Bruce's main problem is not that he's wrong in claiming that mostly-literate people are illiterate, but that suggesting that literacy is relevant to the issue. Even if it were the case that all 5,000 new immigrants would be illiterate, that would not justify a vote against the bill. U.S. employers have a right to hire willing workers, and people have a right to seek work, whether or not the employees are literate.

I knew as soon as Bruce kicked the photographer on his first day on the job that he had set himself up as a story. He now has a reputation that he'll never be able to shake. And the Post is more than happy to report all of Bruce's zaniness, because the Post has a long-standing antipathy to the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which Bruce was instrumental in promoting. The Post loves the idea of making Bruce the poster-boy for TABOR. Which means that Bruce has done more than tarnish his own reputation; he has made it harder for advocates of restrained taxation to make their case over the noise.

The fact that various conservatives simultaneously claim to back TABOR and oppose immigration shows only that they don't understand what economic liberty is all about. Not only do I welcome peaceable, productive Mexicans to the U.S., but I want them to bear the lowest tax burden possible.

Speculations about Jesus' Birth

April 23, 2008

How did Mary get pregnant? Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352277,00.html) reports new speculation:

In his upcoming biography of Jesus, "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven will make the shocking claim that Christ probably was the son of Mary and a Roman soldier who raped her during the Jewish uprising in Galilee, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue called Verhoeven's claim "laughable."

"Here we go again with idle speculation grounded in absolutely nothing," Donohue told FOXNews.com. "He has no empirical evidence to support his claim, which is why they say 'may have.'"

I basically agree with Donohue's criticism.

But what is Donohue's alternative account? The Gospel of Luke claims (1:35): "And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

Because the claim that Mary was impregnated by a supernatural being is supported by so much more empirical evidence than the claim that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.

Tanner: Families USA Health Study Flawed

April 23, 2008

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute wrote an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/speakout-flawed-health-care-study-poses-own/) article for today's Rocky Mountain News that criticizes a recent study by Families USA. That study, Tanner summarizes, claims " that 360 Colorado residents die each year because they lack health insurance." Tanner notes that, "all things being equal, it is better to be insured than uninsured," but Families USA misstates the actual problem.

Tanner writes:

The Families USA study was not a traditional "double blind" experiment with a control group and a treatment group. Rather, it is a retrospective analysis, which compared the rates of people who died with insurance to those who died without insurance. Since the proportion of people without insurance seemed to be higher than those with insurance, they extrapolated likelihood to project excess deaths due to lack of insurance. But there are just too many outside variables to make such interpretations valid.

Even the Urban Institute's Jack Hadley, who co-authored a similar Institute of Medicine study cited by Families USA has said that "observational studies . . . cannot answer the question of whether health insurance directly affects health outcomes." And a detailed review of the academic literature by Helen Levy and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies found little proof of a "causal relationship" between health insurance and better health.

Moreover, the reason that many people cannot afford insurance is that political controls have priced them out of the market. Yet Families USA is dedicated to promoting even more political control of medicine.

Tanner continues:

One thing we know for certain is that government-run health-care systems frequently deny critical procedures to patients who need them. For example, at any given time, 750,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the NHS to cancel as many as 50,000 operations each year. And in Canada, more than 800,000 patients are currently on waiting lists for medical procedures. ... A study by Christopher J. Conover with the Center for Health Policy, Law and Management in the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University found that as many as 22,000 Americans die each year from the costs associated with excess regulation.

Tanner notes that various mandated benefits in Colorado significantly increase the cost of health insurance.

It's quite a coincidence that the flawed Families USA study popped just before State Senator Bob Hagedorn starting pushing bill 217, which, originally, advocated forcing individuals to buy health insurance.

Hagedorn recently (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/04/21/042208_3a_Centennial.html) said that 217 is "the antithesis of what Massachusetts has done." Yet 217 still creates the possibility of an individual mandate, the core of the Massachusetts plan.

The Daily Sentinel reports, "Senate Bill 217 would have carriers submit plans to the state rather than have the state dictate the kinds of plans it would require carriers to offer, Hagedorn said."

What a joke. Bill 217 would in fact dictate what sort of plans carriers must submit. Moreover, once the plans are submitted, the legislature can continue to impose more controls on them.

It is interesting, though, that Hagedorn is now running away from Massachusetts, even though the Massachusetts plan is in fact the primary model for proposed plans in Colorado. Paul Hsieh has collected numerous (http://westandfirm.org/blog/index.html) stories describing the problems with the Massachusetts plan.

If reformers such as Hagedorn get their way, perhaps politicians in other states can pretend that their statist proposals are the "the antithesis of what Colorado has done."

More Problems with Expelled

April 24, 2008

Scientific American reveals more problems with the Creationist documentary Expelled, which I've criticized (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/04/shermer-lockitch-flunk-expelled.html) previously. I'll review only one of the six main points from the article.

The article points out that Expelled offers a rather selective review of the case of Richard Sternberg. "According to the film, after Sternberg approved the publication of a pro-ID paper by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute, he lost his editorship, was demoted at the Smithsonian, was moved to a more remote office, and suffered other professional setbacks."

However:

Sternberg was never an employee of the Smithsonian: his term as a research associate always had a limited duration, and when it ended he was offered a new position as a research collaborator. As editor, Sternberg's decision to "peer-review" and approve Meyer's paper by himself was highly questionable on several grounds, which was why the scientific society that published the journal later repudiated it.

The further implication is that Sternberg abused his editorial position to advance his pseudo-scientific ideological position, which implies that his treatment was altogether too forgiving.

Schwartz Starts Patient Power Blog

April 24, 2008

Hooray! Brian Schwartz has started a blog called (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) Patient Power, "brought to you by the Independence Institute."

Within a minute of viewing Schwartz's blog, I learned something new about State Senator Bob Hagedorn's Bill 217, which raises the possibility of new controls and a mandate to force people to buy politician-approved insurance. Schwartz (http://www.patientpowernow.org/?p=10#more-10) writes:

The (http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/ec5a8a31ffceb33c872574260058876f?OpenDocument) Bill Summary for Colorado Senate Bill 08-217 (which I've written about (http://www.patientpowernow.org/?p=4) here), which would make it a crime for Coloradans not to buy politician-approved medical insurance, includes a link to a report by a group that calls itself "Families USA"* titled Dying For Coverage, which claims that lacking health insurance causes thousands of Coloradans to die each year. ...

* You gotta love the name "Families USA." If you disagree with their policy recommendations, you must be against families, and worse yet, the USA!

Sure enough, the very first pdf file included in the summary is the Families USA study, which, as I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/tanner-families-usa-health-study-flawed.html) pointed out yesterday, is seriously flawed.

In other words, Hagedorn's bill is motivated by a fabrication.

In his opening post, Schwartz (http://www.patientpowernow.org/?p=3) writes:

Why "Patient Power"?

Because this is what government controls have taken away from us. It's what we need to continue to benefit from life-saving medical advances and care, and be satisfied with our experience with physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies.

State and federal policies have wedged insurance companies between between you and your physician, which erodes the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors have more incentive to please insurance companies than they do to please you, the patient. Government controls have also placed your employer between you and medical insurance companies, so insurers seek to please employers, and not you. ...

Patients and doctors alike owe Schwartz thanks for defending their liberties.

Barber the Bigot

April 25, 2008

Matt Barber is the policy director for cultural issues with (http://www.cwfa.org/) Concerned Women for America, a (http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp) group "helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy." Barber thinks that gay people deserve the "due penalty for their perversion," including death.

(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2008/03/28/gay_activists_risk_your_life_tolerate_it!) Writing for the conservative Townhall, Barber writes:

[T]here are those who... with haughty hearts and sardonic "pride," willfully choose sin over Christ; death over life.

It's a self-evident reality which is bolstered by medical science, but Scripture additionally reminds us in both the Old and New Testaments that those who choose to engage in homosexual conduct do so at their own peril.

Consider Romans 1:26-27...

It's sad when people yield to disordered sexual temptations that can literally kill them spiritually, emotionally and physically. Nobody with any compassion enjoys watching others "[receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." But a corollary to free will is living (or dying) with the choices we've made.

Barber here makes three basic errors. First, he thinks that we should guide our lives according to bigoted comments in an ancient book of mythology. Second, he assumes that homosexuality is sinful temptation, rather than a fundamental orientation of a person developed at least from childhood. Third, he conflates risky sexual activity with homosexuality.

I accept at face value Barber's claims that male homosexuals (he conveniently forgets about female homosexuals for this point) have higher incidences of various diseases. But the problem is risky sexual behavior with multiple partners (coupled with the greater chance of sharing blood via anal sex), not homosexuality per se.

Heterosexuals who engage in risky sex with multiple partners have a higher incidence of various diseases than do monogamous homosexuals.

Barber moves to a discussion of blood donations. He rightly criticizes "militant homosexual activists" in South Africa who "have been 'protesting' by deliberately and surreptitiously violating that nation's blood ban" of male homosexual donations (again taking his claim at face value).

However, Barber is wrong to paint all homosexuals with the same brush. The fact that a Christian has murdered a practitioner of abortion does not make all Christians murderers.

I'm all for protecting the blood supply; I certainly don't want to get HIV should I need a transfusion. But a ban on male homosexual donations does not get to the root of the problem, for it prohibits some low-risk people from donating blood, and it allows some high-risk people to donate (though I assume that high-risk heterosexuals are also screened out). The more effective screening question would be: "Have you had anal sex with more than one partner within the last X years?" (A follow-up question could ask about the partner.)

But such a question, though objectively more relevant, doesn't mention homosexuality, and so it does not fit Barber's bigoted agenda.

Barber continues:

...Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern has been viciously attacked and ruthlessly maligned, even receiving death threats, for saying publicly that "the homosexual agenda is destroying the nation." She even went so far as to say that, in her estimation, homosexual behaviors and "gay" activism pose a greater threat than terrorism.

Reasonable people can debate that opinion...

Reasonable people can endorse only one side of that opinion. Anyone who thinks that homosexuals pose a greater threat than Islamic terrorists is suffering from self-induced insanity.

But I do have a couple of questions for Barber, given his faith-based approach to homosexuality. Do you believe that any literature or speech pertaining to homosexuality (including, but not limited to, pornography) should be censored? Do you believe that consenting adults should be subjected to any criminal penalties for practicing homosexuality?

In fact, those would be good questions to ask anyone who claims that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible.

Apocalyptic Environmentalism

April 25, 2008

Ronald Bailey recently made some interesting (http://www.reason.com/news/show/124939.html) comparisons between environmentalism and evangelical Christianity:

Environmentalism arose as a movement just a few years before the Moral Majority, with an end-of-the-world undercurrent that harked back to the millenarian sects of the Second Great Awakening. Green millenarians do not expect a wrathful God to end the corrupt world in a rain of fire; instead, humanity will die by its own gluttonous, polluting hand.

Such apocalyptic visions were limned in Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring, which predicted massive cancer epidemics as a result of chemical contamination of the environment. Paul Ehrlich asserted in his 1968 book The Population Bomb that in the 1970s "hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." And the Club of Rome's 1972 report The Limits to Growth announced the imminent, catastrophic depletion of nonrenewable resources. ... The Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Even the staid New York Times editorial page warned of the human species' "possible extinction." It wasn't so far from the evangelists' fears of a literal Armageddon, embodied in books like Hal Lindsey's best-selling The Late Great Planet Earth (1970).

Although all those predictions failed, environmentalism still exhibits millenarian tendencies. Former Vice President Al Gore has warned that man-made global warming is producing a climate crisis that might "make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization."

Is it any wonder that evangelicals are turning increasingly green?

Despite environmentalist scare mongering, the Industrial Revolution has been the greatest boon to human beings.

It turns out that humans almost did go extinct once, about 70,000 years ago. Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352461,00.html) reports:

The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.

The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age. ...

The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. ...

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, commented: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"

What? You mean the whether used to change even when people had a miniscule "carbon footprint?" The difference was that, back then, people had no ability to deal with climate changes.

Anyone who doubts the amazing pro-human consequences of the Industrial Revolution need merely glance at a historical (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/pop_socio/pop_socio.html) population chart.

It is ironic, but no coincidence, that the same environmentalist movement that warns of human apocalypse laments the causes of the population explosion.

Comment by Tom Stelene: I've recently been learning about the history of end of the world hysteria. The end of the world is nothing new! I'm halfway through 'A Brief History of the End of the World—From Revelation to Eco-Disaster' by Simon Pearson. I have to think that if there was widespread education on this subject's huge history, that might go a long way to end 'the end of the world' nonsense we have to deal with, exposing it for the delusion it always is, be it in secular or supernatural guise.

Lake of Fire

April 26, 2008

Lake of Fire is a documentary that explores the issue of abortion in America. It gives plenty of time to both sides, but it also allows religious extremists in the debate to indict themselves. The documentary is worth viewing not only for those interested in the issue on both sides, but for those interested in the nasty turns that religion can take. Various Christians shown throughout the movie literally advocate and/or commit murder and terrorism in the name of God.

The main problem with the documentary is its editing. It is severely disjointed; it keeps jumping back and forth between issues, speakers, and stories for no apparent reason. I lost track of the number of superfluous songs included in it. (If I wanted to watch music videos, I'd get MTV.) A number of the clips, such as from Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes, are completely pointless (and the bit from Keyes is also taken out of context). At 152 minutes, the film is painfully long; I yearned for it to end. Cut of its fluff, it easily could have fit within an hour and forty-five minutes.

The documentary contains three main parts (mashed together). It explores the views of opponents of abortion, tracks a thoughtful but incomplete debate among left-leaning intellectuals, and shows abortion procedures.

The views of opponents of abortion fall into two main categories: abortion should be outlawed, and abortion should be violently protested as well as outlawed. Most prominent of the legislation-only camp is Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade fame. McCorvey describes how, following her episodes of self-mutilation and involvement with new-age mysticism, she found Jesus and changed her mind on abortion. "I'm a servant of Christ now," she says at an event.

The general theme among the religious opponents of abortion is that "life" begins at conception and that God prohibits abortion.

What the documentary does not do is explore nuances of opinion. Many people only want some restrictions on late-term abortions, yet nobody from that camp was interviewed for the film.

The film is downright frightening when it shows interviews and talks by those who favor violence. Following are several of the scary quotes:

"We will not back down on upholding the law of God. If this nation, if Bill Clinton, is going to reject the law of God, then this nation is going to die [i.e., self-destruct]."

"I think they should execute blasphemers [including those who say "god damn it"]... because that's what the Bible teaches."

"Abortionists should be executed."

"They've been seduced by Satan... We're coming right into the middle of Satan's territory up here in Colorado..."

One fellow (who also offered the quote directly above) argues that advocates of legal abortion consist of three types of people: satan worshippers, homosexuals, and "the pro-death." But this guy clearly is delusional; he also claims that he's seen employees of abortion clinics barbecue the aborted fetuses. I don't think interviewing insane people contributes much to the discussion.

Much of the documentary reviews the various murders committed by Christian opponents of abortion. When one of the murderers is sentenced to execution, several people supported the murderer. The film interviews one woman who was a victim of a bombing of an abortion clinic.

One person discusses Christian Reconstructionism, the movement of Rushdoony. The goal of the movement, according to the documentary, is to establish religious law; implement the death penalty for abortion, homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, heresy, apostasy, and witchcraft (among other things); and generally to establish a Christian theocracy.

Much of the film is dated and seems so; at this point the religious right has fairly effectively dampened calls for violence against the "abortion industry."

The left-leaning intellectuals include Nat Hentoff—who, notably, opposes abortion on secular grounds—Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Singer. Not surprisingly, the overriding theme of these people is moral ambiguity and subjectivism. Dershowitz argues, "Everybody is right;" it's "very, very difficult" to draw "black and white lines." Chomsky says, "The values we hold are not absolute."

Of course there is a gray boundary here; even Ayn Rand, who adamantly favored legal abortion, drew a distinction between embryos and fetuses just before birth (see Ayn Rand Answers, page 17). But, for Rand, the emphasis was on the morally clear regions—particularly the early stages versus an independent child at birth. (See her additional (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html) comments.) Those interviewed for the film emphasize the moral grayness at the expense of the morally certain.

However, the documentary is obviously editing content to make a point. One woman claims that we should move away from the language of rights, which implies right and wrong. The film pits the view of moral relativism and subjectivism against Christian absolutist dogma. The film ignores—or includes only incidentally—the possibility that moral clarity may be reached outside of the context of religious dogma.

The film conflates general moral ambiguity with the fact that women should choose whether to get an abortion based on their personal conditions. But those are two separate issues. The claim that women have an absolute moral right to get an abortion has nothing to do with whether a particular woman should choose to get an abortion. Similarly, freedom of speech says nothing about whether an individual should go into journalism.

The film's greatest failing is to never bring to the forefront the distinction between a potential and an actual person. Hentoff, the outlier, argues that an embryo is "a developing human being," and no one debates this. But the relevant distinction is that an embryo is a potential person, whereas a born child is an actual, independent person. The documentary should have included interviews with people who argue this position.

All of the film's favored intellectuals, of course, endorse welfare statism, regardless of their stance on abortion. Chomsky, for instance, derides the U.S. for not giving more in foreign aid.

The film contrasts the secular left-wingers with the Bible-thumping anti-government types. One fellow argues that we should establish laws "as outlined by God," which, for him, entails the right to keep and bear arms, the abolition of the IRS, and "constitutional government" (whatever that means for him). Never have I been so struck by the danger of affiliating with kooks who hold superficially similar political positions. As a secularist, I support both legal abortion and economic liberty. I have practically nothing in common with Chomsky, but I have even less in common with those who think that welfare should be abolished because it violates God's will for our allegedly "Christian Nation." Of course, my perspective is not one that the documentary chooses to explore, for it has its own agenda.

The film also shows two women getting abortions. One woman gets hers relatively late, at five months, while another gets hers early. One problem with the film is that it does not discuss how many abortions occur within the first trimester, why some abortions are performed later, or what Roe v. Wade has to say about late-term abortions. The unfortunate impression left by the film, then, is that abortions typically or often involve fully-developed fetuses, which is simply not the case.

Still, the documentary is worth viewing despite its many faults and shortcomings, so long as viewers are aware of those issues.

D'Souza Versus Rights

April 28, 2008

Dinesh D'Souza is a cheerleader for religion, and most any religion will do. His favored religion is Christianity, but short of that, he prefers a religious orientation to a secular one. In a recent (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/04/28/what_muslims_really_think) article, he continues to find common cause with the Blame America First crowd of the radical left, discussing Islamist terrorism not in the context of problems within modern Islam that cause such terrorism, but in the context of alleged American failures.

D'Souza claims that Americans who advocate "the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on... are producing a powerful 'blowback' from the House of Islam."

The first thing to notice is that American domestic politics are hardly the legitimate concern of non-American Muslims. I agree with D'Souza that Islamists hate America for its freedoms, but D'Souza is wrong to suggest that any part of the fault lies with America. Certainly we should not alter our domestic policies in a shortsighted attempt to prevent "blowback" from Islamist terrorists.

D'Souza, in criticizing leftists, also packages items that do not fit together logically. I think that people have the right to blaspheme. Women have the right to get an abortion. Consenting adults have the right to trade sex for money (as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/prostitution-reply-to-shane-fookes.html) argued,) produce and view pornography, engage in homosexuality, and partner romantically with whom they choose. I do not advocate "the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square," but neither do I think that Christian symbols should dominate that square. I think that non-abusive parents have the right to raise their children and to set policies concerning sex education and contraceptives.

What is the alternative to the liberties that I endorse? To blaspheme (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blaspheme) means "to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things)." For example, the phrases "God damn it" and "God does not exist" are blasphemous. The alternative to the right to blaspheme is the imposition of legal penalties for blasphemy; for example, some Americans (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/04/lake-of-fire.html) call for the death penalty for blasphemers. The alternative to the right to abortion is the imposition of legal penalties on doctors and women involved with abortion. The alternative to legal prostitution is today's hypocritical prohibition that fosters violence and disease. (However, most American "liberals" do not favor legal prostitution, as D'Souza suggests.) The alternative to legal pornography is censorship. While calls for censorship are in vogue among both the left and the right, they are incompatible with freedom of speech. The alternatives to gay rights and gay unions are legal penalties for homosexuality (in the "House of Islam" homosexuals often are killed) and discriminatory contract law.

In a future article, perhaps D'Souza can explain precisely what legal penalties he believes Americans should adopt against blasphemy, abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. Otherwise, perhaps he can explain why he thinks some such liberties deserve legal protections while others don't.

Tax-Subsidized Recreation Brings Conflict

April 28, 2008

The following article originally (http://gjfreepress.com/article/20080428/OPINION/991403372) appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

April 28, 2008

Fruita rec center another zero-sum game

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

In our last article, we discussed Barack Obama's confusion about zero-sum games, situations in which one person's gain comes at another's loss. Michelle Obama perfectly summarizes the zero-sum mentality (as (http://boortz.com/nuze/200804/04182008.html) reported by Neal Boortz[(http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/04/around-world-wide-web-59.html) via Myrhaf):

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

We don't think that people's pies, or their pay checks, belong to national politicians. Or to local politicians, for that matter.

A defining characteristic of a free market is that people are able to make mutually-beneficial transactions. One person's gain is the other person's gain.

A fun place to view the workings of the free market is Down Town Grand Junction during Farmers Market. But even here the invisible hand that Adam Smith talked about can go unnoticed. We do not see the thousands of exchanges of goods and services that came before a single apple could be sold at the Farmers Market. Breeding, planting, irrigation, fertilizer, tractors, haulers—the list goes on and on—made possible the apples we buy at market.

The free market system is beautiful to see, so why would anyone want to upset the apple cart?

Farmer John's apple cart competes with other apple carts and also, to an extent, with many other businesses. If we buy apples, we have less money to spend elsewhere. Yet if Farmer John offers quality apples at a good price, he'll make sales.

Now imagine that, one day, Farmer John notices a new apple cart across the street, one run by the government. The latest freeze was less frightening. These apples are subsidized by taxpayers, whether they eat the apples or not. Because the government forces people to subsidize its apples, Farmer John suddenly faces lost sales and, perhaps, bankruptcy.

Moreover, because people lose more money to taxation, they have less to spend with the lemonade stand, the dance teacher, and so on, who in turn have less money to spend for goods and services that they want.

The government's apples are seen, as Henry Hazlitt would say, whereas all the goods that are not produced, and all the services that are not offered, are unseen.

Subsidized apples are an example of a zero-sum game. Some people's gain—the employees and customers of the government's subsidized apple cart—imposes a loss on others—Farmer John and everyone else who loses business.

True, there are winners and losers in a free market, but the difference is that, in a free market, exchanges are voluntary, so the losers are those who fail to satisfy their customers; the system remains one of positive gains. In zero-sum politics, the resources of some are forcibly transfered to others, creating a net loss.

Substitute a recreation center for an apple cart and we arrive in Fruita, notably a town that did not get its name from government-run fruit production.

Recently the people of Fruita voted on a measure to use tax dollars to build a city-owned recreation center. The measure failed on a tie vote.

This issue has divided the community of Fruita, and this is not surprising. Half of the community is willing to use governmental force, ultimately at the point of a gun, on their neighbors to build the center. (If our claim strikes you as overly dramatic, try writing a letter explaining that you choose not to pay your taxes, and see what happens to you.)

Is a recreation center a good idea for Fruita? We don't know. If it is, then it will be profitable on a free market. Those who want the center can raise the capital, build the facility, offer the services, and pay for it all by charging their customers (or collecting voluntary donations). Just like any other business.

But if the recreation center cannot be built without government force, it shouldn't be built at all. The government has no more business offering recreational services than it does selling fruit. The government should not subsidize some people's pet recreational activities at the expense of movie theaters, dance instructors, ski slopes, Boy and Girl Scouts, restaurants, 4H, tour guides, outdoors stores, rafting companies, and so on.

Even a small tax can have large effects when spread out over a city's population. Moreover, a government that can forcibly transfer a little wealth can forcibly transfer a lot of wealth. A few dollars here, a few dollars there, and suddenly the total tax burden approaches half our income. Families that would rather spend their money on an ice cream cone or put it toward the college fund, rather than toward a recreation center, have that right.

Zero-sum politics diminishes neighborly trust because it harms some to benefit others. The alternative is the positive-sum, voluntary free market.

Comment by Keith J. Pritchard: Regarding the article "Fruita rec center another zero-sum game," the author is missing an important economic concept—Beneficial Externalities. He wrote that the Rec Center would only be a good idea if the free market could support it. He isn't considering the marginal social benefit. For example, it could provide a nurturing environment for youth who might otherwise be on the street experimenting with drugs. If the center kept these youth out of trouble with the law and out of prison (paid for by taxpayers), that is a beneficial externality. Using the author's logic we should auction off all public parks, BLM land, State Parks, and National Forest to the highest bidder!

Back to Barber

April 29, 2008

A few days ago, I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/04/barber-bigot.html) discussed Matt Barber's bigotry toward homosexuals. Today I want to reply to another article by Barber, "(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2008/04/21/gay_sex_kills) 'Gay' Sex Kills." He writes:

Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote "tolerance" for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to "embrace who they are," pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke? ...

That's exactly what the homosexual activist "Day of Silence" is all about—advancing, through clever, feel-good propaganda, full acceptance among children of the homosexual lifestyle.

Barber's comparison of homosexuality to smoking and drinking is ridiculous. People can choose whether to smoke or drink; those things are not inherent in one's character. Homosexuality, by contrast, is a deeply ingrained characteristic. I don't know whether homosexuality has a genetic component, but whether or not it does, it is deeply embedded in personality. (That said, I favor market education in which, I suspect, most schools would eschew political activism in favor of learning.)

One can form a psychological addiction to smoking or drinking, but such addictions can be formed and broken. Homosexuality is entirely dissimilar. Sexual orientation precedes puberty; it is latent from a very young age. Of course, a homosexual can choose not to practice homosexuality, just as a heterosexual can choose to practice gay sex or to become celibate. (At some point we might distinguish between a homosexual orientation and homosexual practice; for example, prison rape hardly indicates an orientation.) While it is obviously possible to choose to have sex with people of different genders, homosexuality as an orientation seems to be unalterable or very close to it.

Moreover, there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality. Insofar as homosexuality can lead to loving relationships and healthy sex, it can be a good thing, just as heterosexuality can be a good thing.

Barber notes that male homosexuality is associated with AIDS:

By recently admitting that "HIV is a gay disease," Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, acknowledged what the medical community has known for decades: the homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death.

In fact, multiple studies have established that homosexual conduct, especially among males, is considerably more hazardous to one's health than a lifetime of chain smoking.

To the consternation of "gay" activist flat-earthers and homosexual AIDS holocaust deniers everywhere, one such study—conducted by pro-"gay" researchers in Canada—was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) in 1997.

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years"—more than twice that of smoking.

"[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions," concluded the study, "gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. ... [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men."

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called "homophobia," that being "Homophobia: The rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!"

No one doubts that male gay sex is associated with a higher incidence of AIDS. But this does not establish Barber's point. Female gay sex is not so associated; does Barber therefore approve of female but not male homosexuality? Furthermore, unsafe heterosexual relations with multiple partners is also associated with a higher incidence of various diseases, while monogamous homosexual relations are not.

Barber's comparison of homosexuality to chain smoking fails. Chain smoking harms the health of anyone who tries it, though the magnitude of the harm depends a great deal upon genetics and luck. Male homosexuality, on the other hand, is risky only with partners who might have AIDS. Two healthy men who enter a monogamous relationship have no more chance of getting AIDS than Barber does.

Insecure Property Rights Brings Conflict

April 29, 2008

We allow local politicians to arbitrarily redefine property use, and then we wonder why this causes problems. Daniel J. Chacon (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/28/city-council-hears-heated-comments-rezoning-plan-s/) writes for the Rocky Mountain News:

After a nearly 10-hour meeting that ended just after 3 a.m. today, the City Council approved a rezoning that will prevent the construction of duplexes and other multifamily dwellings in two northwest Denver neighborhoods.

The council voted 10-2 to rezone 53 acres in West Highland and 62 acres in Sloan's Lake from R-2 to R-1, putting an end to so-called scrape-off redevelopments to make room for higher density multiple-unit properties.

Council members Charlie Brown and Jeanne Faatz voted in opposition. Though they raised several concerns with the proposal, both said the issue boiled down to property rights.

The dissenting council members are correct that arbitrarily changing property rules violates rights, but the fundamental problem is not the change in zoning but the zoning controls themselves. Arbitrarily zoning to allow higher density use is just as incompatible with property rights.

It is a sad state when, in America, people think they own their neighbors' property as well as their own. Yet that is the mentality manifest and propagated by zoning controls. Land ownership is to a significant degree a socialistic endeavor.

What is the alternative? The proper default position is that the first-in-time user acquires rights in the used property, but not in any adjacent property, except insofar as use of adjacent property interferes with the original use. For example, if you build a ranch in an open frontier, you have the right to own and operate the ranch, but you don't own the entire frontier or the open land not directly associated with the ranch. If somebody moves in next door, you have no right to control that property unless the new neighbor directly interferes with your operation of your ranch—for instance, if your neighbor opens a plant that poisons your land.

First-in-time property allows for voluntary communal rights. For example, if you want to set up a commune on an open (or purchased) piece of property, compete with common ownership within the commune, you have that right. Though the language of a "private commune" is odd, it is apt in the sense that the commune is privately held by a particular group of people.

I live in a Homeowner's Association (HOA) in which all of the outdoor property is owned in common and use of indoor property is restricted by covenant. The sort of complex in which I live simply could not operate without such an arrangement (though it does fall into problems typical of collective ownership. I have speculated that federal housing policy drives such property away from an apartment model to a condominium model, but regardless HOAs are permissible in a free market).

If you want to maintain partial ownership rights over your neighbors' property, then you should buy into an HOA. Alternately, a group of neighbors could, by unanimous consent, create an HOA.

Aside from HOAs and conflicts of prior rights, you do not own your neighbor's property and should not have the ability to control it. Real property rights are not subject to majority rule or the whims of petty politicians.

Insecure property rights necessarily breeds conflict.

Chacon continues:

About 130 people testified at the two hearings, and at least twice that many showed up to listen. The huge turnout—and the divisiveness of the issue—prompted council members to call on sheriff's deputies to keep a close eye on the hearings.

The zoning changes, which go into effect in January 2009, created ill feelings among divided neighbors. ...

Supporters said the increased density from the multiple-unit structures was ruining the character of the two neighborhoods, which are comprised of predominately single-family detached homes.

The outcropping of multifamily structures has cast shadows on gardens, increased traffic and created parking wars, among other quality of life issues, they said. ...

But opponents said the rezoning infringes on their property rights and would hobble the redevelopment they say has revitalized the neighborhoods.

Todd Silverman said he bought in the area 10 years ago for several reasons, including the "potential the zoning would afford."

It's unfair that now "certain people want to take away those property rights," he said.

Realtor Susan Pearce agreed. She also said the rezoning could lead to higher housing costs.

You do not own the roads (though someone should), and thus you do not own traffic rights. You have the right to park your car on any property that you own or rent, but not on property that does not belong to you.

The matter of sunlight access (similar to the matter of scenic views) is a trickier one. While it is conceivable that a new user could block another's sunlight in such a way as to significantly impede the original use, I have never heard of such a case. If you buy property in an urban setting, you're hardly counting on unimpeded sunlight for your livelihood. The notion that a partial "shadow" on one's garden may constitute a violation of property rights seems pretty silly. An HOA can properly control such things, but otherwise the owner should be able to determine use. Of course, you are welcome to purchase your neighbor's land—or an easement on that land—in order to preserve your views or prevent shadowing.

Defining property rights is no trivial matter, particularly when it involves such things as moving water and air. Yet property rights can be securely defined through objective laws and the courts. A mark of secure property rights is that they cannot be overturned by vote.

To a large degree, property rights have been subverted by zoning controls. The inevitable result is the sort of conflict and injustice seen in these Denver neighborhoods.

Iran Threatened by Harry Potter

April 30, 2008

I don't think Barbie poses much of a threat to Iran's theocratic, oppressive government. But Harry Potter may be another story. The stories' anti-totalitarianism and strong themes of intellectual independence rightly make Iranian officials nervous.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/arts/28arts-IRANVERSUSBA_BRF.html) reports (via (http://titanicdeckchairs.blogspot.com/2008/04/operation-barbie-invasion.html) Titanic Deck Chairs):

Iran's prosecutor general railed on Sunday against the invasion of Barbie, Batman, Spider-Man and Harry Potter and demanded that the country's young be protected against them, Agence France-Presse reported. Urging measures to safeguard "Islamic culture and revolutionary values," the prosecutor, Ghorban-Ali Dorri Najafabadi [criticized the figures]... In July 2007 "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" went on sale in Tehran. Two years ago the police raided toy shops and put black stickers on the packaging of Barbie dolls to hide their bodies.

Iran had better go ahead and ban Deathly Hallows, before it's too late!

The Post's Push Poll

April 30, 2008

The Denver Post's online polls often are silly, but one from April 28 is especially ridiculous:

Did you observe Earth Day?
Absolutely—Every day is Earth Day
Yes—Took part, vowed to live greener
Sort of—Accidentally got involved this year
No—Meant to, but didn't
Never—Don't believe in climate change

Of the five responses, the first four imply support for the motives and political goals of Earth Day, while the last response describes a position that no actual person holds.

The Post would be hard pressed to find a single person who does not "believe in climate change." Anyone with at least an elementary education understands that, in the past, the earth's average temperature has alternated between ice ages and warming periods.

The three main issues in contention are these: does global warming pose a significant problem within the coming decades, is modern global warming significantly impacted by human behavior, and what, if anything, should be done about it?

For what it's worth, here's my reply to the Post's poll: "No, because I disagree with the environmentalist movement's bias against human industry and its advocacy of socialistic reforms."

Prophetic 'News'

May 1, 2008

Since when does evangelical preaching constitute news? Since The Denver Post decided to (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9100109) pander to the evangelical movement, I suppose:

New Life Church embraces prophecy
Church legions learn "seeing" is believing
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/30/2008 06:08:17 AM MDT

COLORADO SPRINGS—The pastor of New Life Church—Colorado's highest-profile megachurch—is teaching its 10,000-member congregation how to become modern prophets in their own lives.

"I want all of us here tonight to hear God's voice," Pastor Brady Boyd told the several hundred gathered Monday night. "You've all been uniquely hard-wired to hear the voice of God." ...

The Holy Spirit can give people direct guidance from God on everything from their marriages to their jobs if they learn how to hear it, Boyd said.

The article goes on like this for 591 words. The article presupposes the existence of God and allows for not a single word of criticism or skepticism.

Draper does include one interesting line: "New Life Pastor Jeff Drott... said that God rarely speaks to people in an audible voice, often sending a thought, vision, dream, image or scriptural insight."

Isn't it conceivable that these "thoughts" and "insights" are coming from some source other than God? For instance, if you have a problem and start "thinking" about it or reading the Bible (or any other book offering moral guidance), mightn't you come up with something useful? Do such thoughts and insights really require a belief in God? Or is it possible that non-religious people also get thoughts and insights (and maybe even dreams, images, and the like) when they're contemplating a problem?

And isn't it possible that Electa Draper might, you know, interview somebody for her "news" stories who offers a perspective other than the one that we've been "hard-wired to hear the voice of God?" Alternatively, she could simply cover real news.

For Better Health, Repeal Political Controls

May 1, 2008

The following article originally was (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1468) published by the Independence Institute on April 30, 2008.

For Better Health, Repeal Political Controls

By Ari Armstrong

My wife and I pay $132 per month total for high-deductible health insurance, hundreds of dollars less than we would pay for comprehensive insurance. Our goal is to never need to make an insurance claim. We pay for all of our routine medical care—doctor visits, eye glasses, dental work, prescriptions—out of pocket, and we like it that way.

Our medical expenses come out of our Health Savings Account (HSA), which means that it's all pre-tax money. Unfortunately for us, various enemies of HSAs have been trying to undermine them at the national level.

By paying less for high-deductible insurance, we've been able to pay off debts faster and prepare for a family, something that has been difficult given our high tax burdens.

If Colorado wants to keep and attract young working families, the legislature ought not further muck up health insurance by loading in a bunch of new expensive mandates. Nor should the legislature require such couples to further subsidize others through higher taxes and/or insurance premiums.

If the legislature wants to make health insurance more affordable for more people, it should repeal existing political controls that have driven up insurance costs and priced some people out of the market.

However, we should realize that the broader problem with health insurance is that, because of federal tax policy, most insurance is tied to one's job. Lose your job, lose your insurance. Because of the tax benefits of "paying" people with insurance coverage, such insurance is really pre-paid medical care that discourages economic provision and consumption of health care.

Our society has largely forgotten the proper purpose of insurance when it comes to health. Most people remain healthy into middle age, when risks for various diseases start to increase. Through insurance, we voluntarily pool our resources to pay for the care of the few who get unlucky. If federal policy had not driven health insurance off track, we'd buy insurance when we're young at a low rate and keep the same policy long-term, and we'd also pay for routine and expected expenses directly, which would encourage healthy competition.

All of the commonly cited problems with medicine have been caused by decades of political intervention in medicine. For details, see "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'," by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, MD, at (http://westandfirm.org/) WeStandFirm.org.

Yet, rather than act to repeal the controls that are the cause of the problems, many of today's politicians want to impose still more controls. If they succeed, the result will be worse health care that costs even more.

Here in Colorado, the legislature has considered everything but repealing the controls that are the cause of the problems. In 2006, then-Governor Bill Owens signed into law Senate Bill 208 to create the Blue Ribbon Commission for Healthcare Reform. That commission rejected the only free-market proposal and recommended such measures as massively expanded taxes and forcing everybody to buy insurance. The Commission's recommendations basically went nowhere.

But apparently one failed commission deserves another, so State Senator Bob Hagedorn is currently pushing Bill 217. If the bill passes, later this year Governor Bill Ritter will appoint "a panel of expert advisors" to come up with a bunch of new political controls for the legislature to consider in the future.

Originally, the bill encouraged the "panel of experts" to assume that all Coloradans would be forced to purchase politician-approved health insurance. The amended bill lists that only as an option.

Forcing people to buy insurance would cause two basic problems. First, you can't force somebody to buy something they can't afford, so any such plan must accompany massive tax hikes and subsidies. Second, once politicians force you to buy something, special-interest groups will constantly fight to include their pet service as part of the forced package, whether you want it or not. The result will be continual pressure to expand the scope of the forced insurance and make it ever more costly.

Much of the bill describes the creation of politician-approved "value benefit plans" for health insurance that would be subject to a variety of restrictions and substantially subsidized through taxes.

Yet consumers and providers have the right to decide through voluntary exchange what plans constitute a value to them. We don't need a new bureaucratic commission; we need liberty.

Ari Armstrong, a guest writer for the Independence Institute, blogs at FreeColorado.com.

Kopel Overreaches with Bigotry Claim

May 3, 2008

Recently Dave Kopel, my long-time friend and associate, (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23018) reviewed Edwin Rockefeller's The Antitrust Religion. I haven't read the book, and antitrust per se lies outside the scope of this blog. Yet in his review Kopel makes an interesting claim about religion:

The weakest part of the book is Rockefeller's insistence that antitrust is like a religion because (he claims) people believe in it based on blind faith instead of factual inquiry and because (he says) antitrust and religion both impose vague, shifting mandates.

That is a bigoted and ignorant claim. Orthodox Judaism, to name one of many possible examples, imposes many rules that rarely change and are extremely easy to understand (and obey, if one chooses).

Likewise, the world of religious thought is replete with great minds, such as Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, whose analysis is based on reason instead of blind faith.

I agree that it doesn't do much good to oppose antitrust on the grounds that it's similar to religion. The real reason to oppose it is that it's horribly unjust and demonstrably destructive of economic liberty and wealth. (See The Abolition of Antitrust and The Cause and Consequences of Antitrust.) However, Kopel goes a bit far in saying that Rockefeller's claim is bigoted.

In general, religion does "impose vague, shifting mandates." While Orthodox Judaism imposes clear, fixed rules, Judaism as a whole has changed dramatically through the centuries. So, while Rockefeller's comparison seems pointless, it is not bigoted.

Moreover, the fact that Aquinas and Locke employed reason does not contradict the fact that they also employed faith. Nobody with religious faith can consistently reject reason without quickly dying. Similarly, antitrust law is based on an economic theory, but the problem is that the theory does not justify antitrust policy. So the comparison of antitrust to religious faith is not out of bounds.

Even one who adopts religious faith presumably would not want to apply faith to a secular matter such as antitrust (at least I don't recall anything from any scripture pertaining to antitrust), so again I think Kopel goes a bit far with his criticism.

Bigotry means unreasonable fear, hatred, or intolerance of something. For example, a few days ago I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/04/barber-bigot.html) called Matt Barber a bigot for his views on homosexuality, which I showed to be unreasonable. Reasoned criticism of religion is not bigotry, any more than reasoned criticism of atheism is.

Krause on China

May 3, 2008

Mike Krause, a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute, has started the blog (http://regimewatch.blogivists.com/) "Regime Watch" to track "Beijing's world-wide thuggery." So far, I've learned of China's role in the Sudan and in Zimbabwe.

Mostly I track state policy, and even there I must be selective in what I follow. I devote less attention to foreign affairs, and China gets only a fraction of that time (what with all the goings on in the Middle East). It is great, therefore, that Krause is devoting a space to China, a nation posed to become an ever greater global player.

I've always been torn between two arguments. On the one hand, free trade with China may foster a middle class there, expose China to Western ideas and institutions, and encourage pro-liberty reforms. On the other hand, trade (or at least some sorts of trade) may further enable China to build its military, threaten its neighbors, control its people, and support other oppressive regimes. Obviously, we do a great deal of trade with China, though, off hand, I don't know what fraction of our trade or China's trade this constitutes. In what ways is China getting better? In what ways worse? Perhaps Krause can delve into these sorts of broader issues as he develops his blog.

Dutch Museums Pulls Muhammad Photos

May 4, 2008

I don't enjoy Sooreh Hera's (http://soorehhera.com/gallery.html) photographs. I don't consider them to be art or even very artistic. But the photographer, originally from Iran, has an absolute moral right to take such photos and display them in consenting establishments—and her right should be protected by law.

Unfortunately, because Islamists have threatened violence, a Dutch museums have pulled Hera's photographs. Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354075,00.html) reports:

The most controversial images feature gay men posed in various stages of undress. In one, a man wears leather chaps with his buttocks exposed, wearing a mask of Ali, the son-in law of the prophet Muhammad. In other photo two men are shirtless wearing masks of both Ali (on the left) and Muhammad (on the right). ...

Museum directors initially planned to display the work of the 35-year-old artist. But now, citing fear of reprisals and political pressure, they've changed their mind, much to her dismay.

A museum does have the right to choose which works to display. If a museum had decided not to display Hera's photographs beccause they aren't very good, that would have been no violation of Hera's rights. (One museum did reject the photos on the basis of quality.) But, by threatening violence, Islamists have violated the rights both of the museums and of Hera.

Fox continues:

...John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, said Hera's works cross the line and are offensive.

He said freedom of speech does not mean that one has the freedom to be as insulting as possible.

"It isn't as if we have absolute freedom in the United States to be offensive and insulting just to be different," Voll said in an interview.

"Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute," he said.

Freedom of speech does indeed mean that we have the "freedom to be as insulting as possible," within the context of rights, meaning that libel, slander, and incitements to violence are excluded. (Inciting someone to violence does not mean insulting them such that they become violent, as Islamists would have us believe; it means actively exhorting others to commit acts of violence, as Islamists do.)

Voll confuses freedom of speech—one's legal right to say and publish whatever one wants with one's own resources—with the social consequences of speech. McCain has the right to call Obama the n-word. And the rest of us would have the right to vote against him for doing so.

Fox reports:

"The Netherlands is very much a flashpoint right now. It looks as if there is going to have to be some hard choices made about whether we"re going to defend our civilization or not," Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch told FOXNews.com.

Spencer says this sort of pressure by Muslim groups "who don't hesitate to traffic in violent intimidation" will continue to undercut freedom of speech until it no longer exists.

"The ultimate goal of people making threats is to make it illegal or too dangerous or both for anybody to say anything considered to be insulting to Muhammad or Allah, to impose the Islamic code, which is the goal of Usama bin Laden, upon the West," he said.

"It's time to take a stand and say we believe in freedom of speech and that means some people will be offended."

Whether you praise or condemn Hera's photographs, defenders of liberty must defend her right to create and display such work, free from violence and threats thereof. Free speech protects offensive speech or it protects nothing at all.

Denver Post on Guns

May 4, 2008

Michael Booth and Kevin Simpson have written a surprisingly balanced (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9138675) article about gun ownership for The Denver Post, not a paper to which readers usually look for balance regarding such issues.

Unfortunately, the authors do get some points wrong. My criticisms should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of the article, but as a corrective to an article that's largely good.

The authors sound surprised to report that, in handgun safety classes, people spend much of their "class time learning how to avoid actually using a gun." The authors call this a "paradox," but it is the standard orientation of gun owners.

The authors correctly note that those with concealed-carry permits compose an "exceptionally law-abiding group." Unfortunately, the authors misstate the evidence regarding guns and crime. They write: "Gun enthusiasts argue more guns equal less crime... but researchers point to a long-term decline influenced by larger forces and no impact on crime attributable to concealed-carry laws."

It is true that "larger forces" play the bigger role. However, it is simply not true that "researchers"—suggesting all researchers—have found no impact of concealed-carry laws. Some researchers have found that concealed-carry reduces crime, others have found that it does not reduce crime, and no researcher has found that concealed carry increases crime.

Moreover, plenty of unassailable research shows that gun ownership reduces "hot" burglaries when the owners are home. John Lott, in addition to running statistical regressions showing that concealed-carry reduces crime, also ran regressions showing that gun ownership generally relates to lower crime, other things equal. (Lott reviews the research regarding guns and crime in The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime. Such scholars as Joyce Malcolm, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and Dave Kopel discuss many other issues including burglary. I review a portion of the evidence in my 2003 article, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/06/gunsmedia.html) "Guns and the Media.")

The main problem with the Post's article is that it advocates "middle ground" gun restrictions but does not offer any actual evidence that such restrictions would work. The article ignores the evidence that existing restrictions (such as Brady registration checks) have failed, as well as the well-developed arguments as to why various proposed measures would cause more problems than they solved. For example, the article quotes State Senator Sue Windels, who has offered "lock up your safety" legislation that would demonstrably make homeowners less safe. Instead, the article offers polling data indicating that many people want more restrictions, as though polling data were a substitute for sound arguments. The article thus reveals a deeply pragmatic mindset that assumes a principled, consistent view must be wrong by virtue of the fact that it is principled and consistent, despite the fact that it is also supported by tight logic and robust empirical evidence.

Knight: Is Homosexuality Genetic?

May 5, 2008

Recently I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/04/back-to-barber.html) discussed Matt Barber's bigotry toward homosexuals, based on two of Barber's articles published by Townhall.com. Today I turn my attention to a more thoughtful (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertKnight/2008/03/29/abc_follows_born_gay_script_to_a_t) article by Robert Knight, again from Townhall.com.

Knight never explicitly states his opinion on homosexuality, though in his article he defends "people who believe homosexuality is wrong." Knight "is director of the Culture & Media Institute," an (http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/about/missionstatement.aspx) overtly religious group, which, in its "Best of the Web" section, (http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/) includes a link to the article, "Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality a Curable Disorder." So we have a pretty good indication of where Knight is coming from. Yet we must evaluate Knight's claims by their own merits.

In his article, Knight reviews a Good Morning America segment that promotes the idea that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Knight claims that establishing such a claim "is a central strategy of homosexual activists... If sexual behavior is hard-wired like race, then moral considerations can be swept aside, homosexuality declared a 'civil right' and governments can move against people who believe homosexuality is wrong."

Knight's comment contains two errors. First, even if homosexuality were established as a genetic trait, that in no way would justify governments using force "against people who believe homosexuality is wrong." People have a right to be wrong, and they have a right to free speech.

Second, even if homosexuality were established as a genetic trait, that would not prove definitively that it is either morally right or wrong. It would still be possible to argue that a genetic predisposition should not be acted upon. The comparison to race fails, because people cannot choose to change the color of their skin, but they can choose whether and with whom to have sex. To take a different example, some people argue that people are genetically hard-wired to accept religious beliefs. I don't think that's true, but, if it were, I would still argue that we should use our reason to overcome such predispositions. In another example, according to a review of Matt Ridley's The Red Qeen, Riddley "argues that men are polygamous" by genetic predisposition. Even if that were the case, I would not waver in my support of monogamy.

I suspect that homosexuality usually results from a confluence of genetics, environmental factors, and conscious choice. Yet, regardless of which of these three factors is most at play in any given case, I hold that homosexuality can be a healthy, moral path that leads to quality romance. Can homosexual relationships be unhealthy? Yes—just as heterosexual ones can.

Knight suggests that genetics does not explain homosexuality. He seems open, though, to a genetic predisposition acting in concert with environmental factors:

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist with degrees from MIT, the University of Texas and Harvard, has written extensively about problems with genetic research on homosexuality, and also about professional organizations' refusal to consider opposing evidence. In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Satinover says genetic factors might contribute "not to homosexuality per se, but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual 'option' more readily available than to those who lack this genetic trait."

He notes that most basketball players tend to be tall, but that this does not mean that they have a "basketball gene." It only means that they might gravitate toward that sport because of their height. Similarly, a young boy might be more sensitive than other boys, be less athletic, be rejected by his father and peers, and hence be starved for male approval. An early sexual experience could then take him down a path he might not necessarily have taken.

Satinover notes that cultures worldwide historically have varied greatly in terms of homosexual practice and that this indicates that "environmental" factors are at work.

Given that such cultures have existed where the incidence of homosexuality is far greater than at present, the incidence of homosexuality is clearly influenced by mores.

Of course, the incidence of admitted homosexuality—and of underground homosexual activity—is also influenced by mores as well as by laws. For example, in Iran, where the government kills homosexuals, people are unlikely to advertise the practice.

Whether homosexuality is caused by genes, environment, choice, or a combination of the three, homosexuals deserve legal protection of their rights and safety. On the cultural level, homosexuals also deserve not to be condemned merely because of their sexual orientation.

Comment by Mark Call: "Even if 'men are polygamous by genetic predisposition,' I would not waver in my support of monogamy." Why argue for reason in other cases, Ari, and yet admit that you are unmoved by either reason or facts in this area? I find it both odd and inconsistent that you appear to argue FOR homosexuality, in spite of the obvious health and anti-evolutionary issues, and against polygyny (or even polygamy) in spite of the potential economic, survival, and division-of-labor advantages. And I find it at least humorous that the Bible takes the opposite position on both. That wouldn't have anything to do with that dichotomy, would it? ;)

Gorman Skewers Bogus Families USA Health Claims

May 5, 2008

Families USA is a (http://www.familiesusa.org/about/) "non-partisan" outfit that is a partisan fighting for government-controlled health care. It advocates policies that would harm families and that run contrary to the USA's heritage of liberty. The organization is built on deception and it uses bogus claims to advance its agenda.

Back in February, Linda Gorman and I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/very-costly-health-care-solution.html) pointed out that a Families USA "study" regarding the magnitude of costs shifted from the uninsured to the insured is deeply flawed. We wrote:

Those who advocate an individual mandate throw up all kinds of numbers to support the wild claims that the proposal would save everyone money. A Jan. 8 article from The Denver Post claims that "Coloradans who have insurance spend an extra $950 each year to cover the costs of those who show up at the hospital without insurance."

The article attributes the number to state Rep. Anne McGihon, who said that the figure comes from Partnership for a Healthy Colorado. Partnership for a Healthy Colorado, in turn, says it got the figure from Families USA, which published a paper in 2005. That paper's estimates were unable to accurately predict the percentage of uninsured residents in Colorado. The paper also grossly overestimated at least some costs of uncompensated care.

The Lewin Group, the modeling firm hired by the commission to collect information about Colorado, reported total Colorado expenses for the uninsured of about $1.4 billion. Of that amount... leftover uncompensated costs, the ones that are not paid by any identifiable source, total $239 million. Divide $239 million by Colorado's 2.8 million insured residents, and the result is a maximum likely cost-shift of about $85 per insured individual per year.

To "fix" the problem of $239 million in cost-shifting, the [Commission for Healthcare Reform] proposes to increase health spending in Colorado by more than $3 billion...

Then, on May 2, Gorman posted an (http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/dying-for-media-coverage/) article to John Goodman's Health Policy Blog regarding Families USA's claims about insurance and mortality:

In the series of (http://familiesusa.org/issues/uninsured/publications/dying-for-coverage.html) reports, called "Dying for Coverage," Families USA purports to show how many people are killed by a lack of health insurance in each state. For example, they claim 6 people die every day in Florida because they are uninsured. Seven die every day in Texas, 8 in California, and 25 in New York.

How is Families USA able to tally up all this carnage with such pinpoint precision? As it turns out, these claims are based on a 15-year cascade of studies—each repeating the errors and misinterpreting or mischaracterizing the findings of the previous one and ultimately relying on data that is 37 years old. ...

[T]here is no point at which anyone from Families USA actually examines a medical record. There is no interview with any doctor, any patient or any family of a deceased patient. There is only algebraic mumbo jumbo in support of an unsupportable claim.

Gorman explains the problems with Families USA's claims in greater detail in the article.

Gorman's criticism follows (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/tanner-families-usa-health-study-flawed.html) one by Michael Tanner, who explains, "The Families USA study was not a traditional 'double blind' experiment with a control group and a treatment group." Tanner offers additional evidence discrediting the Families USA claims.

As I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/schwartz-starts-patient-power-blog.html) reviewed, Brian Schwartz discovered that a summary of State Senator Bob Hagedorn's bill 217 cites the bogus Families USA study.

Finally, on May 3, the Rocky Mountain News published Gorman's (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/03/yet-another-bogus-families-usa-story/) letter regarding Families USA's claims about Medicaid. Gorman points out that an earlier article from the Rocky, (http://rocky%20mountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/%2022/report-ties-medicaid-cuts-job-%20losses/) "Report ties Medicaid cuts to job losses," "simply repeated the substance of a press release from Families USA." Gorman continues:

...What the Bush administration is proposing is a slightly smaller budget increase, about 7.1 percent rather than 7.4 percent. The 2009 budget numbers are available on Page 61 at http://www.hhs.gov/budget/ 09budget/2009BudgetInBrief.pdf.

If Families USA were a real family making $50,000 a year, these budget numbers would be the equivalent of having an expected windfall of $53,700 reduced to $53,550.

Families USA is known for approaching health care with a well-defined ideological slant and for producing lousy numbers on all manner of health-care issues. One hopes that, next time, the Rocky will take the Families USA reputation for inaccuracy into account, and that it will check before it unquestioningly reproduces their press releases as news.

It would also be pleasant if Colorado legislators would refrain from basing state policy on Families USA's misinformation campaigns.

Schaffer on Abortion

May 6, 2008

Bob Schaffer, formerly of the U.S. Congress, currently is running for Senate against Mark Udall. As I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) reviewed, Udall has clearly and unambiguously endorsed the separation of church and state. What about Schaffer? While he has not replied to my inquiry, and while I don't know his views on a variety of issues, he has made very clear his views on abortion.

Recently the Rocky Mountain News published a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/22/bob-schaffers-2000-speech-about-abortion/) speech that Schaffer delivered in 2000 in northeastern Colorado, when Schaffer was a member of Congress. Following are some of the most important quotes:

[A]bortion as a a constitutional right... was first fabricated... in 1973... when our government stripped from the unborn child the fundamental Right to Life. ...

Tonight I want to congratulate this Pro-Life Alliance assembled here, because you have not abandoned that opening precept of our American Declaration. Nor have you abandoned the self-evident Truth that, regardless of the opinions of Washington, D.C.'s elite, the natural, God-given Rights of the unborn are still very much in force.

Your very presence here tonight reinforces it. Your money, your time, and most of all, your prayers are all testimony to the unifying force of the Creator and the true benevolence of Divine Providence. Indeed, it was 2000 years ago that He revealed to the world the way of victory over death, through a Child.

And it is because of the promise of the Christ Child that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God hears our prayers for all souls. He hears our prayers that His mercy be generously dispensed upon the souls of the unborn, the souls of their mothers, their fathers, and even their executioners and all those who, through their own weakness, have become the counselors of darkness.

Our prayer and our mission here tonight is for life. Friends, the simple fact is, at abortion mills across the country, there is simply too much death, and too much violence. It is wrong, and it must stop. Whether perpetrated against the unborn, or any other human being, violence and premature death is always wrong. ...

See to it that this Republic for which we stand is truly one nation under God, and that we do extend the full benefits of Liberty and Justice to all living human beings, born and unborn.

At least Schaffer's statements are unambiguous. He believes that God prohibits abortion in all cases, that a fertilized egg has a God-given soul, and that the government should obey God's will. A search of the speech for "rape," "incest," and "life of the the mother" pulls up only "not found." Abortion "is always wrong," according to Schaffer (though I don't know whether he has since made any concessions).

It would be nice if my choice in the race weren't between a socialist and a theocrat. But I absolutely cannot vote for the theocrat.

Surprise, Surprise: Bill 217 Captured by Special-Interests

May 6, 2008

As Brian Schwartz has (http://www.patientpowernow.org/?p=29) reported, State Senator Bob Hagedorn said that "to load up mandates" into his bill 217 would be its "kiss of death." Unfortunately, while the bill deserves death, bad legislation has a way of rising from the dead to stalk citizens.

Schwartz points to a May 2 (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/04/28/daily52.html) article from the Denver Business Journal by Bob Mook that reports the following:

[Representative Anne] McGihon acknowledged the House is much different than the Senate bill, but it now is supported by a wide range of advocacy groups—some of which originally opposed it. ...[T]the bill was severely changed in the House with provisions that removed a coverage cap of $250,000 from the plans. Another House provision would direct the panel to consider plans that cover hospice and palliative care...

I'm not sure where the bill stands now. But even if the bill is stripped of its House provisions, the fact that the bill was immediately subjected to special-interest lobbying indicates where this legislation is headed, if it becomes law. Not only will the new commission it creates be subjected to continual lobbying, but, if the legislature enacts the commission's recommendations, the legislature too will be subjected to such pressure, so long as the legislation remains in force. It is the inevitable result of politician-controlled medicine.

Campaign Against 'Personhood' Amendment

May 7, 2008

I pass along the following media release as an item of interest.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Campaign to Defeat So-Called "Personhood" Amendment Launched

DENVER (May 6)—On Tuesday, May 6, a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and health care advocacy organizations launched the campaign to defeat the proposed so-called "Human Life Amendment."

"If passed, this amendment would permanently alter Colorado's constitution and allow government intrusion into Coloradans' personal, private medical decisions," said Toni Panetta, spokesperson for Protect Families Protect Choices. "This dangerous and deceptive measure would lay the legal foundation to deny Coloradans the health care they need."

"As a physician, this proposed constitutional amendment really scares me," said Dr. Mary Fairbanks, a family physician who has practiced for more than 20 years. "'The moment of fertilization' is not a medical definition, and so defining a person in that way interferes with the practice of medicine. This proposed amendment jeopardizes women's health and will interfere with my ability to treat my patients."

The change to Colorado's constitution as it relates to inalienable rights, due process and equality of justice could provide the legal foundation for the government to investigate women or their doctors in the event of a miscarriage. The supporter of a similar measure in Montana has said this type of amendment could be used to investigate women to see what they may have done to cause a miscarriage.

"There's no denying that this amendment would open the door to government control over some of the most personal choices facing Coloradans today," said Gayle Berry, former state representative of House District 55 in Grand Junction. "This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle can agree that if this amendment passes, Coloradans will lose the right to make decisions about their own families."

Proponents of the initiative have until May 13 to submit at least 76,000 valid signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State's office to qualify the amendment for the November 2008 ballot.

Protect Families, Protect Choices is a broad-based coalition of nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and pro-choice advocacy organizations including the League of Women Voters, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and many others.
###

Speaker Biographies, Current Coalition Members, and Campaign Overview Follow

Speaker Biographies

Jacinta "Jacy" Montoya is executive director of Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR). Montoya was born and raised in the Denver area to a Chicano father and a mother of Irish-German descent, whose families have lived in Colorado for more than 7 generations. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in the growth & structure of cities program at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. Upon graduation, Montoya returned to Denver to work in the community in which she was raised. Her goal is to contribute to healthy communities, healthy Latinas, and healthy families by working to turn policy into action.

Dr. Mary Fairbanks is a family physician who has practiced in Colorado since 1990 After receiving her undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College, she completed medical school and her residency at Columbia University. Dr. Fairbanks is currently a faculty member at St. Anthony's Family Medicine Residency where she instructs future family practice physicians.

Senator Betty Boyd (D, Lakewood, SD 21) understands that the majority of Coloradans trust women to make their own personal health-care decisions, in consultation with their doctors, their families, and their conscience. On issues related to reproductive health, Boyd has sponsored legislation signed into law that ensures sexual assault survivors receive information about emergency contraception in the emergency room and that will allow more low-income Coloradans to receive family planning services through Medicaid to prevent unintended pregnancy. Prior to serving as state senator, she served as state representative to Colorado House District 26. Before seeking legislative office, Boyd worked for eight years as a legislative advocate for social justice.

Gayle Berry is the former state representative to Colorado House District 55 in Grand Junction. During her eight year tenure in the legislature (1996-2004), Berry was a member of the powerful Joint Budget Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, and was chair of the House Transportation Committee. Known among her colleagues as a member who could build coalitions on both sides of the aisle, Berry sponsored legislation as diverse as revising the Colorado Consumer Code, to protecting abandoned babies. She also received over 30 awards for legislative excellence during her tenure from business, economic, and human services groups. Nationally, she served on a number of legislative committees concerned with tax & fiscal policy, transportation, and women's issues. A graduate of Fruita Monument High School and Mesa State College, Berry is a life-long resident of the western slope, and has been active in a wide range of community affairs including business, education, and family welfare.

Dr. Andrew Ross is a native of New York City and a graduate of University of Michigan with a degree in Biological Anthropology, and of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He did his residency training in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Dr. Ross moved to Denver a little over 5 years ago. He is an OB/GYN in private practice in the south metro area. He serves on the executive and legislative committees of the Colorado Gynecological and Obstetric Society and is the director of Continuing Medical Education for the OB/GYN Department at Swedish Hospital. Dr. Ross also serves as Board Chair to the Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountain Action Fund.

Member Organizations & Endorsements

Organizations

ACLU Colorado
American Association of University Women of Colorado
Americans for Cures
Boulder Valley Women's Health Center
Center for Reproductive Rights
Colorado Gynecological-Obstetrical Society
Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights
Colorado Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Colorado Women's Agenda
Colorado Women's Bar Association
Denver Women's Commission
Freedom Fund
Indigenous Youth Sovereignty Project
Interfaith Alliance of Colorado
League of Women Voters
LUZ Reproductive Justice Think Thank
NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women—Colorado Section
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains
ProgressNow
Republican Majority for Choice
White House Project
Women's Lobby of Colorado

State Legislators

Sen. Betty Boyd
Sen. Dan Gibbs
Sen. Bob Hagedorn
Sen. John Morse
Sen. Chris Romer
Sen. Nancy Spence
Sen. Sue Windels
Rep. Alice Borodkin
Rep. Terrance Carroll
Rep. Randy Fischer
Rep. Sara Gagliardi
Rep. Gwyn Green
Rep. Cheri Jahn
Rep. Joel Judd
Rep. John Kefalas
Rep. Andy Kerr
Rep. Claire Levy
Rep. Alice Madden
Rep. Anne McGihon
Rep. Joe Rice

###

2008 Protect Families Protect Choices Campaign Overview
Defeating the so-called "Human Life Amendment"

This fall, Colorado voters may be asked to amend our constitution to redefine "person" and to grant constitutional rights from the moment of conception. The proposed amendment is vague, dangerous and simply goes too far. It seeks to restrict women's access to health care, it invites government intrusion into our personal lives, and, if it passes, it's permanent.

The Protect Families Protect Choices Coalition is leading the campaign to defeat this dangerous measure.

What's at stake:
Access to affordable health care is tough enough for many families in Colorado and this deceptively written ballot measure would make matters worse by putting women's lives at risk and further restricting access to health care.

It is so vaguely worded that its true impact is impossible to predict but what we do know is bad enough.

This amendment would ban all abortion, including in cases of rape, incest or when the woman's life is at risk.
If a pregnant woman were diagnosed with cancer, she may be denied access to life-saving medical treatment because it would endanger the fetus.
This amendment is so extreme it could ban the most popular forms of birth control.
This amendment attempts to place politicians and lawyers in the middle of our most personal, private medical decisions.
The wording is so unclear it could open the door to government interference in decisions about birth control, infertility treatments and stem cell research.

The Colorado Constitution was created to protect us. Amending it should not be taken lightly and it should not be done at all for this deceptively written measure. If this proposed amendment were to pass, it would permanently change our constitution to restrict access to health care.

Our opponents:
Like the initiative they are promoting, the group promoting this measure is deceptively named. The so-called "Colorado for Equal Rights" organization is made up of extreme anti-choice groups from beyond our state borders. Although the leader of the organization, Kristi Burton, is a Colorado native, the group's funding comes from outside groups including the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, Bound4Life in Washington, DC, and the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona.

The challenges:
In this presidential election year, Coloradans will also decide one of the most competitive senate races in the country, several strongly contested congressional races and as a many as a dozen statewide ballot initiatives. Reaching Colorado voters through all the political advertising will be more difficult than usual.

Our opponents are hoping their deceptively written initiative, with its short and simple-sounding language, will sneak through the clutter. They are counting on people not understanding the full ramifications of the proposed amendment.

Our challenge is to get beyond the clutter, be heard over the noise and let voters know that the so-called Human Life Amendment restricts access to health care and invites government intrusion in our private medical decisions.

We need to reach out to voters with a strong grassroots effort as well as earned and paid media campaigns.

Drunkard DA?

May 7, 2008

Lest we need a reminder that angels do not administer the laws, the Gazette (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/07/springs-da-filmed-drinking-driving-during-office-h/) reports (via the Rocky Mountain News): "Fourth Judicial District Attorney John Newsome has been caught on tape drinking and then driving his county-owned vehicle, KOAA reported Tuesday. ...In all, Newsome was shown drinking about 134 ounces of beer in five hours." True, the drinking didn't start till after 4:00 p.m., and whether he was legally impaired is not a matter for me to decide. I wouldn't have been able to drink 70 ounces of beer in "less than two hours" and then drive responsibly. KOAA's (http://static.koaa.zope.net/includes/video/480x400_zope.swf?id=x1331636880) video of the story is fairly damning. I do think that District Attorneys driving tax-funded vehicles should be held to a high standard. I assume that Newsome's office handles cases of impaired driving.

Romney Returns to Religion

May 9, 2008

After (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/12/romneys-religion.html) reviewing Mitt Romney's speech on faith and related comments, I concluded that "Romney has demonstrated that he wishes to sacrifice freedom to religion." Now Romney, who may still play some role in November's election, has (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MittRomney/2008/05/08/religion_and_freedom) returned to the topic.

Romney sensibly asserts that religious "non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty. If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief—to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience—it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

However, Romney's characterization of atheists as "non-believers" rubs me the wrong way. I'm not fundamentally a "non-believer;" I'm a believer in human reason and objective morality based on human life, liberty, and happiness. Moreover, Romney's reference to a "coerciver monopoly" refers both to socialistic regimes and to theocratic ones. This undermines his subsequent statement that "freedom requires religion." Obviously, religion often has been hostile to freedom.

Romney quotes Jefferson regarding liberty as a "gift of God." But the key distinction is that liberty arises from our human nature, not from the arbitrary whim of some king or ruler. The "Creator" of the Bill of Rights need not be God (and for Jefferson it was not the Christian God). And Romney quotes John Adams to the effect that self-governance requires "morality and religion." Again, plenty of people with religion have not advocated self-governance; quite the opposite. An objective morality must be separated from religion, else it and freedom become arbitrary whims of some religious decree, rather than of some king. The United States arose not in the era of religion but in the era of the Enlightenment, when religion gave way to reason.

All of Romney's talk of "freedom" cannot erase the fact that he wants to reduce freedom by imposing faith-based political controls. Freedom of religion is essential, but it is meaningless without freedom of action within the context of individual rights.

And when Romney starts talking about "the holy sacrifice of young lives," he strays from the American ideal of self-defense, in which young lives are preserved to the greatest extent possible within the context of national security, and moves toward holy war, in which human life is sacrificed to religious causes.

Colorado's Spaced Invaders

May 9, 2008

Oh, (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/08/et-call-denver-city-hall/) boy:

Never-before-seen video of "space aliens"—footage that will be revealed to the public in a few weeks—convinced Jeff Peckman that extraterrestrials exist. ...

If Peckman has his way, Denver voters will have a chance to say whether they, too, believe that there is intelligent life outside Earth and whether the city should prepare for close encounters of the alien kind.

Peckman is sponsoring an initiative that would require the city to create an ET Commission...

Well, why not? After all, plenty of people in Colorado believe that gun-owner restrictions cut crime, that socialized medicine improves health, and that higher taxes help the economy. There is at least some possibility that extraterrestrials exist.

That said, the "ET Commission" is not a joke that will remain funny for long.

'Live and Let Live' Barry Maggert Killed in Plane Crash

May 9, 2008

Yesterday Colorado suffered a sad loss. I had seen the photos on the newspapers' web pages, but I didn't put it together until, by coincidence, I called Sheriff Bill Masters today, and he told me that the victim of yesterday's plane crash near Boulder was Barry Maggert, long an activist with the Libertarian Party, with which I was once involved. Masters heard the news from Richard Lamping, with whom Masters and I have worked and who helped organized Maggert's 1998 campaign for U.S. Congress.

Lamping told me about how he got Maggert to open his interviews with a line attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Half the truth is a great lie," in criticism of his opponent. Once Maggert and I had a long and pleasant conversation about his history in politics.

As the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/08/flight-to-graduation-ends-in-tragedy/) reports, Maggert was on his way to see his son graduate today from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The Rocky adds: "Maggert was a columnist for the Carbondale Valley Journal and owned Maggert & Associates Engineers in the town. The Valley Journal says Maggert is a former chairman of the Garfield County Libertarian Party and wrote a column that expressed those views entitled 'Live and Let Live'."

What did Barry Maggert believe? I managed to pull up an article from the October, 1998, Colorado Liberty that quotes Maggert. Bill Winter reports:

Colorado Libertarians took to the trees to conduct a 'pick-in' to protest restrictive INS policies that have kept immigrant farm workers out of the fruit orchards in that state and threatened to leave apples, pears, and peaches rotting on the trees. On August 29, two dozen LP members spent the day picking pears in the orchards of Talbott Farms in Palisade, Colorado. ...

Included in the Libertarian 'pickin' crew were Sandra Johnson, the party's candidate for governor; Dan Cochran, candidate for Lieutenant Governor; and Barry Maggert, candidate for U.S. Congress (District 3).

During the day, Libertarians picked an estimated $5,600 worth of fruit, and donated the proceeds of their labor to migrant farm workers. ...

"The INS is displacing needed labor and hurting people who are trying to feed their families," agreed Maggert.

"These Mexicans are trying to improve their lives—something we as Americans should never oppose. This is not the American
way.

"It's uncommon to see a government agency meet its objectives as well as the INS has this year," he said. "But the INS's success means that fruit will rot on the trees, that workers will be prevented from the free and voluntary exchange of their labor, and that all of us, rich and poor alike, will pay higher prices for food this fall."

And Maggert's old (http://www.maggertengineers.com/BarryMaggert/Positions/index.html) political web site includes additional views:

Campaign Philosophy

Every individual should be free to pursue his or her own goals and aspirations, both personal and economic, limited only by a respect for the equal rights of everyone else to do the same.

The only legitimate purpose of government is to deal with those who refuse to respect the rights of others.

Goal

To work toward a freer America by eliminating laws, regulations, and government programs that restrict or handicap the individual rights to pursue life, liberty and happiness, as the individual sees fit so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. ...

Education:

We have a system in this country where only the wealthy can afford to get the education of their choice for their children. Even though all Americans pay taxes for childrens' education, only a select few have enough money left over to send their kids to a free-market school.

By returning the tax dollars paid by families back to them, all Americans can pick the school of their choice. This causes competition amongst schools to create better curriculums, teaching methods, and learning environments.

Returning parental control of a child's education instead of the government deciding what a child should and shouldn't be taught is of the utmost importance.

Social Security:

This looming financial disaster must be our top domestic priority before it bankrupts our nation. Social Security taxes should be halted. Americans could then start to pay into their own private retirement programs.

Government assets should by sold to provide for annuities for all people that have paid into the current system so that their promised benefits are not taken away.

Environment:

I trust private entities, such as The Nature Conservancy, to take care of our precious forests, deserts, seashores, and wilderness areas more than I trust the government to take care of them. Politicians get contributions from oil, timber, and mining companies as payment for opening up these lands for corporate use. If a private conservator is sold these lands, they belong to them only, to be used as they see fit. As private organizations free enterprise will keep these organizations in check.

Abortion:

I am personally morally opposed to the idea of abortion as a means of contraception, but I am equally opposed to using government to force my morality onto another person. All individuals have the right to do with their own bodies as they choose. ...

War on Drugs:

I want to see dramatically reduced crime rates in this country. I want to see drug pushers removed from our schools. I want to see less gang violence. I want to see less organized crime. And lastly, I want to see less crowded prisons so that we may put away violent criminals for good. Why would anyone want to keep our current system of drug laws alive?

It's time to end the insane war on drugs. The drug problem in America centers around the business of buying and selling of illegal substances, not the individual's use of drugs. Since hallucinogenic drugs were banned in this country, crime has skyrocketed. Drugs in schools have risen dramatically. The current problems we endure with gang violence and drive-by shootings have not been seen since the days of Prohibition.

One only needs to look back at what the prohibition of alcohol did for organized crime and violence in this country. When Prohibition ended, it ended the criminal careers of men like Al Capone and the days of drive-by shootings and Tommyguns.

(http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1263/members/5739454/) Apparently Maggert was interested in Ron Paul's presidential run.

I didn't know Maggert well, and I haven't seen him for years, but what struck me most about him was his down-to-earth good humor. He was a lot of fun to talk with, and he seemed to really enjoy himself. He was serious about promoting human liberty. Even though I eventually left his party, I always appreciated Maggert's grounded approach. I join with other Colorado advocates of liberty in offering Maggert's family deepest sympathies during this painful time.

Maggert will be missed. We will remember him and his life's message, "Live and Let Live."

Pope: No Birth Control, Artificial Procreation

May 12, 2008

I wonder what fraction of Catholics routinely violate official doctrine that prohibits the use of birth control, then feel guilty about it. The Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354867,00.html) reports (via Fox):

...[Pope] Benedict [XVI] reiterated the Church's ban against artificial birth control as well as more recent teaching against using artificial procreation methods.

Pope Paul VI's 1968 "Humanae vitae" ("On Human Life") encyclical prohibits Catholics from using artificial birth control. ...

"What was true yesterday remains true even today. 'The truth expressed in 'Humane vitae' doesn't change; on the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries it is ever more up to date," the pope added.

Shortly after the encyclical came out, Ayn Rand criticized it at Ford Hall Forum, on December 8, 1968. Her speech is reproduced in The Voice of Reason.

Rand argues that the church's antipathy toward sex is rooted in the "doctrine that man's sexual capacity belongs to a lower or animal part of his nature," a doctrine that Rand utterly rejects. Rand then points out the great harm that comes from a prohibition of birth control: romantic couples who do not want to have children—and in many times and places cannot afford to feed them—face a "silent terror hanging... over every moment of love."

The encyclical claims that birth control violates the will of God; Rand explains at length what this doctrine entails and why it is harmful to human life and happiness. The 18-page essay is well worth reviewing in light of the new Pope's comments. Selections of Rand's talk are provided by the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the topics of (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html) love, (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sex.html) sex, and (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/birthcontrol.html) birth control.

Politics Imposes External Harms

May 12, 2008

The following article originally was (http://gjfreepress.com/article/20080512/OPINION/169929828) published on May 12, 2008, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Politics imposes external harms

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

In our last article, we pointed out that a tax-funded recreation center unfairly charges people who don't use the center and pushes out competing voluntary services. We argued that, if a recreation center is a good idea, "then it will be profitable on a free market. Those who want the center can... pay for it all by charging their customers (or collecting voluntary donations)."

Keith J. Pritchard sent a reply to FreeColorado.com, your younger author's web page. Pritchard argued that we're "missing an important economic concept—beneficial externalities." We supposedly aren't "considering the marginal social benefit. For example, it could provide a nurturing environment for youth who might otherwise be on the street experimenting with drugs. If the center kept these youth out of trouble with the law and out of prison (paid for by taxpayers), that is a beneficial externality."

How silly of us: we didn't realize that the only two choices in life are going to a tax-funded recreation center or doing drugs and going to prison.

There is a little problem with Pritchard's case: every recreational activity offers an external benefit. Children who attend Boy or Girl Scouts are not "on the street experimenting with drugs." Other alternatives include going to the movies, reading a book, joining 4H, dancing, martial arts, skiing, going out to eat, cooking a family meal at home, playing games, and so on. All the money forcibly redirected to the recreation center is not available for all the other goods and services that people otherwise would buy.

What is an externality? It is any benefit not funded by the beneficiaries or any harm not funded by the party causing the harm. The problem is that "beneficial externalities" are ubiquitous. If the government should subsidize every activity that offers external benefits, then the government should subsidize nearly everything.

Pritchard has no way of knowing that the external benefits of a recreation center exceed the external benefits of the recreational activities that would otherwise be funded. Thus, by his logic, government should also subsidize theaters, dance studios, restaurants, board games, camping stores, and so on. Not a single provider of recreation should be excluded from the tax trough.

But why stop with recreation? Children need good shoes so that they can walk to and around school. They need cool shoes so that they can have good self-esteem. Obviously, then, the government should subsidize all shoe makers and stores. Children need food so they can develop their minds and get good jobs, so perhaps Fruita should open up a tax-funded grocery store. Books provide all sorts of positive externalities, so clearly government needs to run the book stores.

But let's not stop with businesses! Attractive people walking down the street offer an external benefit to those who appreciate their appearance. What's needed, by Pritchard's logic, is a subsidy for good-looking people and a tax on ugly people. We also need an Attractiveness Index, so that the best looking people get the most tax subsidies while the ugliest pay the highest fees. (Your authors could be in trouble.)

If the government is going to be in the business of subsidizing positive externalities and taxing negative ones, the government should control not only the entire economy but all of our personal choices. Pritchard cannot point to a single human activity for which we cannot show some externality.

Pritchard is "missing an important economic concept" himself, the concept of Public Choice, the branch of economics popularized by Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan (who won a Nobel for his efforts). One of the many interesting implications of Public Choice economics is that politics is a gigantic source of negative externalities.

In the name of "fixing" externalities, politicians impose high taxes, slow the rate of economic growth, hamper the flow of economic information by distorting market prices, create tax-sucking bureaucracies and commissions, impose protectionism, waste funds, and subject our paychecks to special-interest warfare.

The alternative is a free market in which government's only role is to protect individual rights by preventing violence and preserving private property. With rights consistently protected, people are best able to apply their reason to the problems of living and enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchanges.

A system of individual rights is best able to handle externalities. Negative externalities such as pollution of specific properties are resolved through the courts. Social negative externalities, such as rudeness and body odor, are solved by such measures as social pressure, the property holder's right of invitation, and soap commercials. Positive externalities are captured by private businesses and philanthropies.

Those who invoke the theory of externalities to rationalize tax subsidies for their pet projects in fact sanction the greatest contributor of negative externalities, the political process of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The system of individual rights provides justice as well as the best framework for solving economic problems.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Comment by Justin: Ari, you touched on a lot of Hans Hoppe's arguments in his, 'Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security.' http://www.mises.net/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf Although you didn't go far enough. You again fell into the trap of arguing for a 'rights protecting' rights violator—i.e. the government. I know you had the post on why you aren't an anarchist (anymore), but it is posts like these that make me think you are closer than you realize. You've got all the right arguments but you fail to take them to their logical conclusion. That being said, I love your stuff and read it everyday. Keep it up. The 'radical' conclusions will come in time...

Comment by Keith J Pritchard: This is not a black and white world! There must be balance. You said that if the rec center cannot be supported by private funds it is not worthwhile. Following that logic there should be no other highways except toll roads. There should be no national forests, BLM land, state or city parks. My point isn't that the rec center is worthwhile. It probably isn't! My point is that you are ignoring external benefits that may or may not make it worthwhile. You unfairly did not finish your quote of my comment: "Using the author's logic we should auction off all public parks, BLM land, State Parks, and National Forest to the highest bidder!" I do enjoy your columns.

Comment by Ari: It was not unfairness that curtailed your quote, but word count, which we exceeded. But don't worry; we have ample time to address those other issues.

Islam Bans Health Insurance?

May 13, 2008

Where it prevails, Islamic law invades every aspect of life. Now, one Islamic group has declared health insurance forbidden. The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Personal_Finance/Insurance/Health_Insuarance_illegal_Islamic_body/articleshow/2930737.cms) reports (via (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2008/05/islam-and-health-insurance.html) WeStandFirm):

Comparing the benefits of health insurance policy to gambling, key Islamic organisations have termed the policies as "illegal" and directed Muslims to keep away from them.

At a seminar to deliberate whether insuring health was permissible under Islamic law Shariat, the Islamic Fiqh Academy (India) decided that availing such policies was illegal. ...

Health insurance schemes have turned a noble service in to a business activity, hence under Islam it is not permitted, they said. ...

The Ulema suggested that the community could itself organise services to help in the treatment of poor.

There is one exception: if insurance is forced through "legal constraints" (like what?), then a person might be able to get away with having insurance, so long as one spends "the left-over amount... on some form of service to Allah." (Why would there be a "left-over amount?" Isn't health insurance supposed to cover health costs?)

This is the sort of thing that happens when religious dogmatists run things. Nevermind that their views are absurd. Insurance is not remotely like gambling; the point of it is to pool resources to cover the expenses of those who happen to suffer high-cost health problems. If that's gambling, then life is a gamble (but don't tell these Islamists!). Note the socialist presumptions of the Islamists, who define business activities as ignoble. The line about helping the poor is off point; health insurance enables the middle class to avoid poverty. But poverty must be a central concern of such Islamists, as they perpetuate it through their anti-reason, anti-liberty controls.

Comment by Yaseen: Hi Ari, Perhaps I can shed some light on a few of the arguments you have a problem with. To the "legal constraints" exception, where you ask "like what?". Well, certain employers in non-muslim countries require their employees to take health and life cover. As in my case. I am a South African muslim and if I did not agree to take insurance I would be out of a job. As for the left over bit, I can't comment and agree that it is strange. The comparison to gambling is made because in general the monthly premiums are paid for something that may or may not happen. Which plainly means that they (i.e. shareholders and execs.) keep your cash whether you require the cover or not. What I think most muslims and I think most people in general have problem with is insurance companies profiting from their clients hard earned cash. While there is no problem in paying for the administration of a scheme, the shady leveraged and non-leveraged investments that are made with other people's money, and the distribution of the surplus funds to massive bonuses and shareholder dividend payments are unacceptable in Islam and to most educated individuals. Case in point AIG who destroyed the savings of many thousands of people. The profiting on the labour of others is by far, more dangerous than the recommendation given by these religious clergy and the biggest enemy to the liberty you speak of in your article. Thanks and Peace be upon you, Yaseen

Watch 'My Name is Earl'

May 13, 2008

I'll pause from politics to review some television shows I've been watching on video.

My Name is Earl is about a criminal loser who decides to turn his life around. He makes a list of all the bad things he's done, then makes up for them, one by one. The show uses karma as a device, but it's not central to the theme. While karma in a supernatural sense does not exist, it is true, as Earl learns, that if you do good things, good things will happen to you, while if you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. The cast is superb, particularly Jason Lee as Earl. Each half-hour episode feels, not long, but complete. The stories are clever and hilarious; I don't know how the writers come up with the situations that Earl finds himself in. I've watched the first season so far and look forward to more.

I've tried several sci-fi series, but they've disappointed with few exceptions. I enjoy Star Trek, and I adore Firefly. Other than that, the only series I've been able to watch is Crusade, which has a Trekian feel. After an alien race attacks Earth and unleashes a deadly virus, the ship Excalibur must search the galaxy for a cure. The crew run into all sorts of aliens and troubles along the way. After several episodes, I've come to enjoy the characters and the writing, which deals with topics from romance to death cults. Be warned: the computer graphics are horrible for the first few episodes, but then they improve.

Rome is a feast. It follows the rise of Julius Caesar and other key figures, and it creates rich characters out of two soldiers barely known to history. The acting is quite good (though Cato comes off looking like a nutty old crank). HBO substitutes steamy sex scenes for expensive battles.

I guess that, because I'm watching sci-fi and manly Romans, I can admit to watching Gilmore Girls. I wasn't sure I'd be able to stand the series because of the ridiculously dense jokes and the grating side-characters. They hired that whiny lady from the "Save the Children" infomercials, whose voice I can barely tolerate. Nevertheless, the central relationship between the teen and her young mom develops nicely, and the grandparents are delightfully portrayed. The girl reads constantly, studies hard, and sets ambitious goals, and the series is for that reason inspiring.

'Personhood' Amendment Favors Dems

May 14, 2008

Colorado's Democrats must be smiling. The so-called "personhood" amendment—which absurdly defines a fertilized egg as a person—seems headed for the ballot, as Electa Draper (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9248327) reports for The Denver Post.

Yes, the measure will bring out evangelicals and right-wing Catholics to the polls. But it will also motivate the left and women's groups to vote against it. And it will convince most centrist and unaffiliated voters that Republicans are right-wing kooks, once Republicans start associating themselves with the measure.

How can Republicans avoid it? Bob Schaffer has (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/schaffer-on-abortion.html) claimed that abortion is "always wrong." He's already been pressured by the right for not being hard-core enough against abortion. He cannot persuasively dodge the issue as a state matter (when he's running for U.S. Senate), because, as WorldNetDaily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57888) puts it, the measure may be the "silver bullet to kill Roe v. Wade." It is a federal as well as a state issue.

Republicans have given themselves a choice of platforms for this Fall: hypocrites or women-killers. For one of the results of the measure, should it be passed and legally enforced, would be to endanger the lives of women. Kristi Burton, leader of the drive, said the measure would force us to "balance the interests" of a fertilized egg with those of the mother, Draper reports. What that means, in practice, is that some women will die, because doctors could be prosecuted for performing abortions in boarderline cases.

The brilliance of Colorado Republicans continually amazes me.

In a way, it's nice that the evangelicals have placed their cards on the table, bypassing the careful game of incrementalism. The logical conclusion of the religious right's stance on abortion is that a fertilized egg is a person (because infused by God with a soul) and must be legally protected. And that is the debate that we will have for the next six months (assuming there's nothing squirrelly with the signatures).

Thankfully, the measure is doomed (assuming a vigorous opposition campaign). No reasonable person regards a fertilized egg as a person, with all the rights of you and me. A fertilized egg is a potential person, and there is a big difference. I suspect that the measure will go down to defeat with at least 60 percent against. So it's a losing issue for Republicans either way. Meanwhile, the big-money Democratic donors will be more than happy to hammer any Republican (in an up-for-grabs seat) foolish enough to endorse the measure. Just how large of an advantage do Republicans (who retain the registered-voter edge) want to give Democrats in this state?

If Republicans had a lick of sense—and I'm convinced that they don't—they would come out in droves against the measure. I predict that they won't, which indicates only the extent that the religious right has them politician-whipped.

Comment: Perhaps Republicans are more concerned with the freedoms of the children being killed than they are concerned with the women who (pennies to gold bars) risk their lives having them.

Comment by Ari: There can be no doubt that Republicans who endorse Amendment 48, whether explicitly or by (unthinking) implication, would sacrifice the lives of some women in order to save fertilized eggs. By calling eggs/embryos/fetuses "children," the anonymous post above presumes that a fertilized egg is a person, without bothering to make an argument to that effect.

Evangelical Priorities

May 15, 2008

Frank Pastore (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2008/05/12/questioning_an_evangelical_manifesto) criticizes something called the "Evangelical Manifesto" (which I have not yet read), offering his own idea of evangelical priorities.

Pastore notes that "hunger, poverty, disease and the environment" are important—how they should relate to politics he does not specify—but adds, "As evangelicals, what could possibly trump the right to life and the preservation of marriage and the family?" In other words, Pastore's top two concerns are outlawing at least most abortions and interfering in contract law for homosexuals.

Pastore does call for "free markets," without specifying what that means. He points to today's mixed economy.

He makes clear that evangelicals should work to conform governmental policy to the will of God: "Politics is theology applied. One of the ways we collectively 'love our neighbor as our self' is through public policy."

When it comes to the use of political force, Pastore should keep his "love" to himself.

Lakewood Drops Food Tax

May 15, 2008

"Starting next year, Lakewood residents will no longer have to pay a sales tax on groceries," Tille Fong reports for the May 12 Rocky Mountain News. City Council voted to repeal the tax. This follows a 2003 citizens' (http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/11/littleton.html) drive to repeal the tax in Littleton.

Fong adds, "The $4 million that the city receives annually from the grocery tax will be offset by the $3 million that will be raised by revoking a 1 percent sales tax waiver granted to Colorado Mills and Wal-Mart."

I've never been a big fan of discriminatory taxes that unfairly advantage new, big businesses. If lower taxes help business, then the sales tax should be reduced for all businesses.

Recently I discussed taxes with a friend, and the conclusion was that it's bad to tax productivity, because taxing it discourages it. It's bad to keep taxing the same thing with the same owner over and over, as happens with property and cars. The result is that you never really own your property; you must in effect pay rent to the government to keep possession. It's bad to tax investment.

Sales tax on consumer goods is least-bad of the options listed, but that creates the problem of taxing the poor for food, housing, medicine, etc. If government exempts certain things, like food, then that applies to expensive steaks and seafood—hardly essentials. Whether government exempts "necessary" items or "poor" people, that generates a bureaucracy to decide what's exempt and to enforce the rules.

A good rule, though, is that the fewer the types of taxes, the better. The lower those taxes, the better.

Gay Marriage in California

May 16, 2008

I didn't realize this was even on the agenda, but it's fairly big (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9269719) news:

Divided California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
By Howard Mintz and Denis Theriault
Mercury News
Article Last Updated: 05/15/2008 09:31:19 PM MDT

...In a ruling that is certain to inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay marriage, a divided state Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees on Thursday struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. The 4-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice Ronald George, found that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a government-issued marriage license in hand.

So far, God has not racked the state with earthquakes or struck down homosexuals with lightening. Neither have heterosexuals swarmed the divorce courts or abandoned their children. The American family survives.

I do wonder, though, whether it's necessary to move beyond "domestic partnership" to "marriage." The article notes, "State lawyers have argued that California's strong domestic-partnership laws essentially already provide equal benefits to same-sex couples." It's done now, though; I'll be interested to see if the ruling lasts.

I'll also be interested to see how the Republicans respond to this. They can energize their evangelical base, but at the cost of younger independents. I don't think it'll make any difference in the race for the White House—the Democrats seem hell-bent on running losers—but at the broader level and in the longer term, the Dems seem ready to continue to take advantage of GOP infighting between the evangelicals and everyone else.

Diana Hsieh has a (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/three-cheers-for-marrying-whoever-you.html) nice explanation of why marriage should be extended to homosexual couples but not beyond that. Last year I wrote a lengthier (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/01/polygamy.html) article covering similar points.

Go, Iron Man

May 16, 2008

I admit I was pleased that Iron Man squashed Speed Racer. While I have not seen the latter movie, its previews are boring, and I loved Iron Man.

I wasn't going to watch Iron Man, either, but it got good reviews, and one reviewer said it's pro-America. It is. It has three main things going for it.

1. The film's message is that defending America is good, while doing business with terrorists is bad. Iron Man unapologetically blasts terrorists.

2. Iron Man is self-made, and he's proud of who he is. Unlike Spider Man, Iron Man creates his super powers. Unlike Batman, he does so not because of childhood psychosis, but because he needs the powers to kick ass and save his life and legacy. I never thought Robert Downey, Jr., was super-hero material, but I was wrong. He is brilliant as the haughty yet charming man behind the mask. It's nice to see a super-hero have fun.

3. Iron Man is pro-science. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark does not just buy himself a bunch of fancy gear; he engineers and builds it himself.

The movie does have a couple of problems. First, the idea that a power generator keeps shrapnel out of his heart is silly—though I did love the idea of the miniature power generator. Second, the movie seems like it's split into two parts. In the first part, Iron Man fights terrorists in the Middle East; in the second, he fights a U.S. traitor (you don't need three guesses who, given the poster art). The stories are tied together but not very tightly.

Still, this is a good movie, and the fact that American audiences are rewarding it says something good about the audiences.

Is 'Earl' Scientologist?

May 17, 2008

Not long after I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/05/watch-my-name-is-earl.html) recommended My Name is Earl, the NBC sitcom starring Jason Lee, I learned that the show has some Scientologist connections. Last year James Donaghy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,2097544,00.html) reported for the Guardian:

The Scientology-Earl connection begins with Earl himself—actor Jason Lee is a Scientologist, as is show creator Greg Garcia and Ethan Suplee who plays Earl's slow-reader brother Randy. ...[T]here has also been a guest appearance from Juliette Lewis, Suplee's sister-in-law and a practising Scientologist. Also down with the Church is Giovanni Ribisi, who plays recurring character Ralph Mariano. ...

Then there's the concept of the "overt-motivator sequence". Crudely, this is what happens when a person does something bad then subconsciously causes something bad to happen to themself. It all sounds eerily like "Do bad things and it will come back to haunt you", Earl's karmic mantra.

Does this bug me? Well, a lot of good art is produced by people with some kooky beliefs. I enjoyed Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire, and I like John Travolta generally. Travolta starred in Phenomenon, which I enjoyed despite its Scientologist overtones. Scientology does have some vicious streaks relative to other mainsteam U.S. religions (such as its sue-happy lawyers), yet other religions offer similarly silly teachings. I've enjoyed the work of Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, and others.

Besides, the idea of self-sabotage is hardly unique to Scientology. No religion is complete nonsense, or nobody would believe it. (Maybe I overestimate some people.) Dostoevsky wrote of self-sabotage, for instance. I don't think any psychologist would deny it. But Earl is about a lot more than self-sabotage; it is partly about the simple fact that if you treat people like crap, they're likely to treat you like crap right back. If you commit crimes, you're likely headed for jail. If you build a good reputation, good people will respect you. These are good moral themes that transcend religion.

Aside from all that, a major television show is the result of a large group of writers and producers. I suppose that only a few of the participants are Scientologists.

In a special feature, the creator explains his inspiration: his own father decided to get his life together. That's a good story, even if told through the lens of a Scientologist.

Tvert Spins Parties at Governor's Mansion

May 17, 2008

So Bill Ritter—that's Governor Ritter, former District Attorney of Denver—sanctioned (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9275330) crazy parties at the governor's mansion. At first I wondered why this is news. (God knows I've done worse, back when I was young and dumb.) I wish Ritter would throw more parties and sign fewer bills. But leave it to Mason Tvert of (http://www.saferchoice.org/) SAFER, a group advocating legal marijuana, to spin the story into something interesting.

As The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9285948) reports:

Marijuana supporters want to ask the governor why his young son can have a drinking party inside the governor's mansion while other citizens can't smoke marijuana inside their own homes without the fear of prosecution.

Mason Tvert, who spearheaded the largely symbolic victory in 2005 when Denver voters legalized possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, held a press conference [May 16] outside the mansion at East Eighth Avenue and Logan Street, the same day it was reported in the Denver Post that August Ritter III has been hosting keg parties in the mansion.

Tvert asks a fair question. Yet Ritter, who has admitted to smoking marijuana, has discussed lighter sentences for drug users but never has wavered from his prohibitionist stance.

D'Souza on Gay Marriage

May 19, 2008

Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/05/19/gay_rights_vs_democracy) writes the following scary lines in the context of the California gay-marriage decision: "It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy."

Taken alone, D'Souza's statement is an endorsement of mob rule. I was therefore relieved, initially, to read his qualifications. "[M]ajority rule... is limited by what the government has the power to do" and "is also circumscribed by individual rights." So far, that's what I believe as well. Where we part ways is in our understanding of individual rights.

While Christians typically argue that our rights come from God, D'Souza here implies that they come from the state. D'Souza refers to "rights clearly specified in the Constitution." He adds, "The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights."

This presents a difficulty, because our "enumerated rights" explicitly refer to our non-enumerated ones.

If our only rights are those spelled out in government documents, then our rights are culturally relative. I hold that our rights come not from political caprice or mob rule or God, but from our nature as humans. As Ayn Rand (http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualrights.html) stated it eloquently through John Galt, "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work."

D'Souza presents the following argument against gay marriage:

[J]ust like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! ...

[S]tates have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. ...

[I]f it's discriminatory to gays to require that marriage be between a man and a woman, why isn't it discriminatory to Mormons and Muslims to require that it remain between two people? Isn't incestuous marriage also between "consenting adults" who have a right to equal protection of the laws? And why doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment protect the fellow who wants to walk down the aisle with his poodle...?

The point is not that gay marriage is indistinguishable from child marriage or polygamy. The point is that any definition, and marriage is no exception, includes some people and excludes others. Consequently it's unreasonable to say that gays have a constitutional right to over-ride the definition but other groups do not.

D'Souza essentially places the "definitions" of our individual rights in the hands of the mob. His argument, for example, also would have supported restrictions on interracial marriage. "Just like everyone else, blacks to have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the same race!" Society need merely tweak the "definition" of marriage to include "e) of the same race." For "if it's discriminatory to blacks to require that marriage be between people of the same race, why isn't it discriminatory to Mormons..." and so on.

D'Souza's view of socially defined rights meshes with his view of strictly enumerated rights. His argument is that our rights come from the state.

Yet, as (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/three-cheers-for-marrying-whoever-you.html) Diana Hsieh and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/01/polygamy.html) I have argued, gay marriage (between two consenting adults) is substantially similar to heterosexual marriage. Hsieh trounces D'Souza's bogus comparisons:

1. Marriage to beasts is impossible, as the marriage relationship requires the capacity for rationality, not to mention a basic equality in rights. ...

2. Marriage to children is excluded for the same basic reason: children are not yet able to fully exercise even the basic rationality required to live independently. That capacity for independence is required for the integration of lives involved in marriage. ...

3. Polygamous marriage is excluded because whatever relationships would result from multiple unions would be fundamentally different than that of a two-person marriage. ...

Our rights do not come from arbitrary (or traditional) social "definitions." Our rights have an objective basis. And it is telling that Christians, who so often claim that our rights come from God, so often fall back on cultural relativism.

D'Souza makes very clear his attitude toward "enumerated rights:" they are subject to social interpretation. He writes, "In the past Democrats have always appreciated courts doing their dirty work when it comes to issues like abortion, pornography, prostitution and gay rights."

To stick with the issue of pornography, what happened to the enumerated right of free speech? This right, according to D'Souza, depends upon social "definitions" of what constitutes pornography, definitions that are culturally relative and that derive from mob rule or arbitrary judicial opinion. (Significantly, in this case the courts have carved out exceptions to free speech.)

If the enumerated right of free speech is subject to social "definitions," then John McCain's campaign censorship law passes muster, because it wound through the Congress, earned the President's signature, and passed through the Supreme Court.

If free speech may be arbitrarily "defined" to exclude pornography, using D'Souza's reasoning, then why can't freedom of religion be "defined" to exclude "dangerous" or even heretical religions?

D'Souza's position collapses to mob rule, the view that "people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community." While limited powers and enumerated rights may check particular reforms, ultimately those powers and rights depend on popular opinion. While generally people do ultimately create the governments under which they live, my point is that individual rights have an objective basis independent of arbitrary social "definitions."

Oddly, D'Souza's logic suggests that, if the majority chose to change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, he would accept the new rules. Somehow, I doubt other Christians would be happy with that outcome.

Martian Climate Cycles

May 19, 2008

Omigosh! Mars has suffered both Global Warming and Global Cooling! Quick—pass another subsidy! Charles Q. Choi (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356415,00.html) reports for Fox:

Peering beneath the ice at the north pole of Mars has now revealed the red planet may be surprisingly colder than was thought.

Any liquid water that might exist on Mars therefore might be hidden deeper than once suspected, closer to that world's warm heart, researchers suggested. ...

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter... scans revealed the polar cap has up to four layers of ice rich in sand and dust, each separated by clearer sheets of nearly pure ice. Each dirty and clean layer is some 1,000 feet thick (300 meters).

These dirty and clean layers were created by ages of intense dust storms followed by icy eras. This five-million-year-long cycle was likely driven by wobbles in Mars' tilt and fluctuations in the shape of its orbit around the sun.

The more sunlight the red planet saw because of these changes, the more the polar icecaps retreated and the more dust storms Mars saw.

You mean something other than human production influences climate? You mean, like, maybe the sun?

Whether and to what extent human emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases influence Earth's climate, liberty remains the best policy.

Liberty also offers people the greatest promise of mining that Martian ice and generally setting up camp on the planet. There's a whole solar system filled with natural resources just waiting for people to exploit them.

Update on Peikoff's Podcasts

May 28, 2008

(http://leonardpeikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff continues to release interesting podcasts applying Objectivist philosophy to various issues and problems. Here I review some of the highlights of his podcasts numbers 12-15 (even though only some of the issues he addresses pertain to religion).

(http://leonardpeikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-04-07.012.mp3) Podcast 12

Peikoff first addresses the question of whether it's appropriate to take a "slightly less fulfilling" career in order to make more money. Peikoff answers that each person must decide what it is they want to do as a career and establish a hierarchy of values. Assuming that one's career is possible and that one can survive by pursuing it, "then money is irrelevant." (That should surprise those who deal only with caricatures of Ayn Rand.) Likewise, one should not avoid one's chosen career merely to avoid extra years of education.

I find Peikoff's answer persuasive, yet I continue to think that there are many legitimate trade-offs within a career. He gives the example of medicine versus law. However, within medicine and law, there are a great many specialties that impact salary, schedule, place of residence, and so on. Most fields are sufficiently broad that one can enter it at a wide range of salary and education. To take another example, while teaching philosophy at a college requires a Ph.D., it is possible to work on applied philosophy by writing columns and books.

In the podcast, Peikoff also reviews some interesting points about induction and liberty in medicine.

(http://leonardpeikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-04-21.013.mp3) Podcast 13

To what extent must every person understand philosophy? Peikoff answers that, while a formal study of philosophy is not necessary to live a good life, one must grasp the essentials: this world exists, we gain knowledge by observing facts and thinking about them, and we should seek happiness through reason. Peikoff also discusses the importance of applying philosophy in one's own life (as opposed to adopting ideas rationalistically) and the proper relationship between children and parents.

(http://leonardpeikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-05-05.014.mp3) Podcast 14

Is it proper for a soldier to have short-term sexual relationships? Yes, in the situation where a long-term relationship is impossible and death is a possibility of the job. However, one should still find value in sexual partners, avoid self-deception, and practice sex responsibly.

Can homosexuals be Objectivists? Peikoff emphatically answers yes. He points out that philosophy can address certain broad questions regarding sex—for instance, philosophy shows that force, sadism, and promiscuity are wrong—but homosexuality is a psychological matter. Peikoff argues that sexual orientation generally evolves early in life and doesn't "involve choice." Peikoff tires of the question, noting that he personally knows good, hard-working, romantically committed homosexuals.

In this podcast, Peikoff also discusses the "human desire for transcendence," children's rights, and science-fiction.

(http://leonardpeikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-05-19.015.mp3) Podcast 15

Peikoff first answers a question about alleged falling standards in the software industry. He doesn't really answer the question; instead, he discusses all of the things he'd have to know to answer it, which to me is the more interesting exercise. Peikoff points out that there is a proper place in the market for lower-quality goods at lower prices.

Is a romantic relationship between an Objectivist and a Christian possible? Peikoff argues that the answer depends on the circumstances, such as how the Christian interprets the religion. One who believes that Christianity offers an alternative to nihilism is different than someone who believes that faith should obliterate reason. However, Peikoff concludes, such a relationship is likely to fall into a number of problems.

After discussing parental rights, Peikoff turns to the question of whether one can surrender certain rights. For example, can one agree to enter slavery or be severely beaten? Peikoff argues that such things may be properly prohibited. He suggests that government should not protect such agreements and should arrest those doing the enslaving and beating. While this thorny issue deserves more attention, Peikoff offers some interesting starting points.

Finally, how does "self-ownership" fit with individual rights? Peikoff argues that ownership properly applies to external objects, and that ownership of one's self doesn't make sense. Peikoff traces the problem to a conservative effort to reduce the politics to property rights, which, Peikoff argues, are derivative (of ethics and the right to life), not fundamental.

As always, my brief summaries should not be taken as a substitute for Peikoff's complete comments.

Heroes Live in Shadow of War

May 28, 2008

The following article originally (http://gjfreepress.com/article/20080526/OPINION/354974293) appeared in the May 26, 2008, edition of Grand Junction Free Press.

May 26, 2008

Heroes live in the shadows of war

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Amanda is a vivacious, intelligent woman your elder author met last year in Rangely. She helped coordinate a law enforcement class at Colorado Northwestern Community College. She surprised me at lunch when she said, "There are not any heroes." Yes, Amanda, there are heroes. They surround us like shadows. Recently we talked with some of them.

Bob Magos was a WWII submariner. On December 5, 1941, he was hitchhiking the seven miles to school in Hamilton, Ohio. Nobody stopped, so he crossed the street to try his luck. He ended up in Florida.

Bob says he was "going down through Kentucky on December 7." He continued, "I stayed in one of those fifty-cent bed and breakfasts. I walked down on the highway and stuck my thumb out and an Army Intelligence officer stopped in a black '38 Ford and said, 'Do you boys need a ride?' And I said, 'Yeah we're going to Florida.' He said to hop in.

"He said, 'Did you hear about Pearl Harbor?' And I said, 'Where in the hell is Pearl Harbor? How would I hear about it in Kentucky?' He told me where it was and what the Japanese did and he kept playing with the radio."

As they traveled through rural Kentucky they came to a country store where people had gathered to listen to the radio for news. Within a few days Bob had returned home to enlist in the Navy.

Mort Perry, a retired Mesa State professor who worked to expose students to divergent political views, is another WWII veteran.

Mort is Jewish from his mother's side. In his youth he saw the news casts of Adolph Hitler ranting and raving. Mort recalls that, when he was 16, his father said, "We are going to have war sooner or later."

At 20, Mort entered the Army Air Corps. Mort ended up in North Africa in Morocco and Algeria. He flew as the gunner of a B-17. While traveling with British troops in a lorry Mort's group was attacked by a Stuka dive-bomber. Mort was seriously wounded while pulling his fellows from harm's way.

"I was taken to Casa Blanca and treated by a Colonel Knots, a world's leading kidney expert who saved my kidney for 20 years before it had to be removed."

Mort received the Purple Heart.

In the summer of 2007 your elder author was walking with a group to the parking lot after a tennis doubles match. The license plate on Larry Beidleman's car stated that he too was a Purple Heart recipient.

We asked Larry if he received the Purple Heart in Viet Nam. He replied, "Oh no, I received that one in the Korean War. But I was also in WWII."

Larry, now 85, said, "On October 1942 I enlisted in the U.S. Army. I landed on Normandy on D + 18," or Debarkation Day plus eighteen days. Larry fought through the hedgerows to join the Battle Of The Bulge, though he points out that he was not at Bastogne, a town where American troops refused to surrender to the Germans. After V-E day (Victory in Europe) Larry spent three years in Austria before returning to the United States.

Larry also fought in Korea, the "forgotten war." Larry arrived at Incheon during the later part of the war, when UN forces had trench lines on the 38th Parallel.

He recalls, "The military had established MLR (Major Lines of Resistance). The trenches and bunkers and conduct of the war was reminiscent of WWI. Our action at the time was small patrols."

Larry talked briefly about the events leading to his Purple Heart. Ethiopia sent a small force of soldiers composed of Haile Selassie bodyguards. "I was Liaison Officer assigned to the Ethiopians, who were particularly good at night fighting." Larry accompanied the Ethiopians through the UN lines. "On returning back from patrol we were discovered by the North Koreans/Chinese and they fired some artillery where I was slightly wounded in the knee."

Otto Armstrong (next up in our family line) never talks much about the war. The picture album he brought back with him sometimes provokes comments. Otto and Tommy Etcheverry, school friends, joined the military together here in Grand Junction.

Otto was one of the first occupation troops at Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. The pictures show the devastation of the bombed out cities. "We just marched up the street where the atomic bombs had gone off. The bombs had caused quiet a bit of damage but hell, they had it cleaned up overnight."

Theo Eversol, grandfather on the other side, told plenty of stories about the Pacific Rim. He's gone now, as are so many of the veterans from that terrible war.

Amanda, we still have heroes, though they may not think of themselves as heroes or talk much about it. Search for them in the shadows.

'Personhood' Amendment Makes Ballot

May 29, 2008

Following is a media release from a group opposing the 'personhood' amendment, now known as Amendment 48. I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/fertilized-egg-is-not-person.html) criticized the measure and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/05/personhood-amendment-favors-dems.html) discussed the politics surrounding it. Unfortunately, by claiming people must "agree to disagree" and that the measure is "not simple" but "extreme," the release fails to make the essential arguments: a fertilized egg is not, in fact, a person, and banning abortions would violate the rights and threaten the lives of actual people. Nevertheless, I'm glad that Coloradans are organizing to defeat the ghastly measure.

MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—May 29, 2008
CONTACT—Crystal Clinkenbeard

DENVER, CO—May 29, 2008—Today the Colorado Secretary of State ruled that backers of the "Definition of Person" amendment submitted enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Opposition group Protect Families Protect Choices (PFPC) issued the following statement in response:

"Vote No on Amendment 48, the so-called 'Definition of Person.' Accessible health care is tough enough for many people and their families," said Crystal Clinkenbeard, a spokesperson for opposition group PFPC. "This ballot measure threatens access to health care, birth control, infertility treatments, and medical research—just to name a few."

"Amending the Colorado constitution is always serious business. Responsible government, allows us to appreciate and respect individual opinions. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. Defining a fertilized egg as a 'person' in our Constitution and statutes is not scientifically based and simply makes bad public policy."

"The No on Amendment 48 Campaign wants voters to know this dangerous amendment is not simple: it is extreme. It threatens women's health care. It threatens lifesaving medical research. It threatens state laws and policies that refer to 'person' or 'people'—the consequences of this constitutional change are unknown and dangerous and will affect hundreds if not thousands of laws within our state statues."

###
Contact Crystal Clinkenbeard, Protect Families Protect Choices Press Secretary... for more information or to schedule an interview.

Protect Families Protect Choices is a broad-based, bi-partisan coalition committed to defeating Amendment 48, the so-called "Definition of Person." It includes nurses, doctors, religious leaders, and health advocacy organizations. Learn more about Protect Families Protect Choices at www.protectfamiliesprotectchoice.org.

Comment by Mark Call: The amendment is a bad idea, but both religions—the pro-abortion, and the anti-abortion—utterly miss the reason why. Our Constitution does not give the government at any level the power or authority to define life. To do so inevitably ends in only one place, regardless of the claimed motivation of the tyrants who attempt it. Furthermore, even a novice can take a law dictionary and check definitions of the word "person"—and quickly understand that such a "term of art" obviously includes entities like corporations, partnerships, and any number of legal fictions and other creations of the state. NONE of them have Rights like those once secured by the amendments once known as the "Bill of Rights." Finally, read the abomination called the "14 Amendment"—which DOES apply to "persons" that are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Why would anyone with understanding of what has been done to the law in this country want to expand such a "jurisdiction" anyway? Both sides of this debate are wrong, because neither have a clue about how they have been defrauded. And there's nothing in the whole situation that wouldn't be FAR more appropriately remedied by a return to the now-discarded concept of Trial by Jury, made up of peers; twelve truly randomly-selected, living, breathing PEOPLE.

[Comment by Ari, August 11, 2025: I just want to emphasize that I like and support the Fourteenth Amendment!

Comment by Jonathan Briggs: I can see that you don't like defining a fertilized egg as a person. But in my opinion, we should legally define a person using some method. Ignoring religion, let's use biology. It seems to me that we as a species, are wired to have an urge to protect women and children. Men are the expendable protectors of the future generations. Just ask a group of people if it's a worse crime to punch a man, a woman, a pregnant woman, or a child. The responses to that should come out that punching pregnant women and children is a worse crime than punching a man. That tells us something. It seems that a pregnancy is valued almost equally to an actual child, even in the absence of religion. It's survival instinct wired by biology. Blaming religion and "evangelicals" for this is absurd.

Cool Stuff

May 29, 2008

I won't often review products, but I'll make an exception and mention a few here.

(http://www.theracane.com/) Theracane: This is not a substitute for a professional massage, but it's as close as I've found. The Theracane is basically a curved stick with knobs on it. I've found it especially useful for massaging back muscles that I cannot reach by hand. An even cheaper tool is a sock tied with two tennis balls in it; I place this on the floor and roll by back on it, with my spine between the balls. (Note: I have no medical expertise; please consult a health professional and don't sue me.)

Wranglers: I've always been a Levis man. But I got tired of my jeans wearing out so fast. So I tried Wranglers, and, not only do they seem to last better, they fit better, too. They're not as tight where tightness is uncomfortable. And they're a bit less expensive, too.

Chocolate Syrup: I got tired of looking for hot fudge sauce, because practically all of it contains hydrogenated fat. So I made my own, using about equal parts of cocoa powder, water, and sugar, plus a little bit of butter (I used around a tablespoon for a half-cup of cocoa). Cook on medium heat till it boils for a few minutes. This made an excellent sauce for ice cream and chocolate milk. However, it was a bit sweet for me, so next time I'm going to use half the sugar.

Perry Mason: The first season of Perry Mason is out on DVD, and it's great. It's a bit unrealistic for the lawyer to keep representing people who get falsely accused of murder, but each episode stands on its own. Mason is a clever guy, and he seeks the truth. (I forgot to mention this show in my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/05/watch-my-name-is-earl.html) list of television favorites.)

Perkins vs. D'Souza: Alleged Harms of Atheism

May 30, 2008

Greg Perkins is writing a series of essays for NoodleFood criticizing Dinesh D'Souza's Christian apologetics. In his (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/why-new-atheists-cant-even-beat-dsouza.shtml?nc) first essay, Perkins refutes D'Souza's claim that atheism is responsible for the horrors of socialism.

Perkins argues:

[A]theism is not itself an ideology; there is no such thing as an "atheist mindset" or an "atheist movement." Atheism per se hasn't inspired and doesn't lead to anything in particular because it is an effect—not a cause—and there are countless reasons for a person to not believe in God, ranging from vicious to innocent to noble. ... [W]hat would a committed Communist and an Objectivist have in common—regarding what they do believe, why they believe it, how that leads them to live personally, the sort of social system they would strive for in government? Nothing. They are polar opposites in principle and practice, across the philosophical board. ...

The important contrast is not atheism vs. religion, but rather rationality vs. irrationality.

Perkins goes on to argue that totalitarian regimes fundamentally reject and drive out rationality.

Perkins relies on the same distinction to undercut D'Souza's claims about the benefits of Christianity:

Besides trying to tar his opponents with the worst atrocities in history, D'Souza regularly tries to give Christianity credit for mankind's positive strides. For instance, he argues in (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/10/31/what_has_atheism_done_for_us) an op-ed that "Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture" such as the rise of science, human rights, equality for women and minorities, ending slavery, and so forth. That "when you examine history you find that all of these values came into the world because of Christianity." He contrasts Christianity and atheism, saying that these advances arrived in Christendom and by the hands of Christians—not atheists. And he uses this to score extra points in debate by asking his opponents what atheism has to offer humanity, other than the chance to undermine all that progress.

Once again, such a comparison is fundamentally confused. Recall that atheism is not itself an ideology and therefore doesn't lead people to do anything in particular—good or bad. So again we need to approach the issue in terms that will actually shed some light. The illuminating question to consider is: What does reason offer humanity over faith?

Obviously Perkins's essay is not the final word on the matter, but it is an excellent short essay on the subject that merits broad readership. D'Souza has been an effective debater against the "New Atheists," but his positions are fundamentally flawed, and Perkins is going far in pointing this out.

'Personhood' Now Amendment 48

May 30, 2008

The measure to define a fertilized egg as a person has become Amendment 48 for Colorado's 2008 ballot (as I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/personhood-amendment-makes-ballot.html) mentioned at my other blog). As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/05/personhood-amendment-favors-dems.html) argued, the measure gives Democrats an advantage this November. As Electa Draper (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9421300) reports for The Denver Post, the Democrats agree.

[I]n this political cycle, even candidates who oppose abortion are not interested in identifying with highly controversial social issues, said Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli. ... Conversely, Ciruli said, if a conservative candidate doesn't endorse it, he or she could alienate the base.

In the U.S. Senate race, Bob Schaffer's campaign spokesman, Dick Wadhams, who also leads the Colorado Republican Party, did not return calls for comment.

Democrat Mark Udall's campaign spokeswoman, Taylor West, said, "Mark's been very clear that he does not support this. Schaffer has been refusing to take a position. He's trying to hide how far out he is on this issue." ...

Musgrave spokesman Joe Bretell would not comment other than to say Musgrave signed the petition to place the measure on the ballot.

Musgrave's Democratic rival in the 4th Congressional District, Betsy Markey, opposes the amendment.

"It's an extreme measure," Markey spokeswoman Anne Caprara said. "It's an extreme right-wing tactic. This will shine a light on Marilyn Musgrave."

I doubt that Musgrave, an incumbent in a conservative district, is vulnerable, but Schaffer definitely is. Amendment 48 gives women a strong incentive to show up at the polls—and vote for Udall while they're at it.

It is indeed telling that Musgrave signed the measure. If Markey is smart, she'll praise gun owners, oppose tax hikes, and spend every campaign cent she has mailing women and independents in the district linking Musgrave to Amendment 48. I don't know anything about Markey, but if she's even reasonably competent and centrist this issue gives her a chance to win.

I'll be interested to see how Schaffer tries to evade the issue. Good luck on that.

Maybe Colorado Republicans will eventually figure out that most Westerners don't want to live in a theocracy.

Personhood and Rights

June 2, 2008

In a comment to my recent (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/personhood-amendment-makes-ballot.html) post about Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person, Jonathan Briggs writes:

Ignoring religion, let's use biology. It seems to me that we as a species, are wired to have an urge to protect women and children. Men are the expendable protectors of the future generations.

Just ask a group of people if it's a worse crime to punch a man, a woman, a pregnant woman, or a child.

The responses to that should come out that punching pregnant women and children is a worse crime than punching a man.

That tells us something. It seems that a pregnancy is valued almost equally to an actual child, even in the absence of religion. It's survival instinct wired by biology. Blaming religion and "evangelicals" for this is absurd.

The fact that we harshly condemn a criminal for harming a pregnant woman in no way implies that a fertilized egg is a person. I see no inherent problem with defining enhanced criminal penalties for harming a woman's embryo. That's not what Amendment 48 is about. Amendment 48 is about imposing criminal penalties on the woman (or her doctor) for harming her own fertilized egg. And that is a religiously motivated policy.

An embryo is a potential person, and that does matter very much to the mother who wants and expects to bear the child. A mother-to-be invests a great deal of emotional energy, physical preparation, and planning in her future child. Thus, someone who harms a pregnant woman harms not only the woman's health, but another dear value to her. Plus, usually it's possible to tell whether a woman is pregnant, so somebody who intentionally harms a pregnant woman is particularly nasty.

By analogy, if somebody intentionally broke the fingers of virtuoso piano player, we would condemn the perpetrator more harshly than had he simply punched a person in the face. That doesn't mean that a finger should be defined as a person, even though it is both human and alive.

Barr Beats Anarchist

June 2, 2008

Bob Barr was the most logical choice for the Libertarian Party (LP), so I was surprised that the Libertarians chose him. They almost didn't; Barr beat out rival Mary Ruwart only after joining forces with Wayne Allyn Root, who joined Barr's ticket after dropping out of the presidential run. David Weigel (http://reason.com/news/show/126676.html) reviews the story for Reason.

But was the Libertarian Party the logical choice for Barr? I might have checked into an independent candidate (though Barr's (http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Bob_Barr.htm) record on abortion is worrisome), but I can't vote for a Libertarian Barr, because the Libertarian Party is such a disaster. Nevertheless, I do think that Barr is Barack Obama's only hope to win. (I plan to vote for Obama as the best way to register my disgust with McCain.) I don't think that Barr will make any difference—I predict that Obama is such a weak candidate that McCain will Dukakisize him. Yet Barr could actually make the difference in some states, though I doubt it.

Weigel writes:

Early in the balloting on Sunday [May 25], Barr's strategists—and the candidate himself—thought the Radical Caucus might have beaten them. ... The 25 percent Barr scored on the first ballot was lower than everyone expected. ... Barr didn't steamroll, instead grinding out a series of ties with radical favorite Mary Ruwart before the Las Vegas businessman Root dropped out and sent his support Barr's way, wrapping up the nomination.

Why didn't Ruwart win? Known from her work with (http://www.theadvocates.org/) Advocates for Self-Government, Ruwart, a (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart1.html) self-proclaimed anarchist, scared off even some Libertarians with some of her views.

One problem with anarchist Libertarianism (and party anarchists are inherently peculiar) is that it tends toward anti-state reaction, as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/05/morelal.html) argued. For example, the (http://www.lpradicals.org/) Radical Caucus favors "Radical Abolitionism." What is it that they want to abolish? Government. "[T]he outright removal of the injustice and interference of the State is our ultimate goal. ... The Libertarian Party is the only political party that traditionally advocates for real freedom from government interference."

This is untenable. When somebody is trying to mug me, I'd really like some "government interference." Likewise, if a hostile foreign power tries to kill me or invade my country, I'd like the government to take strong military action.

In general, the proper and necessary function of government is to protect individual rights. While the Radical Caucus mentions rights, it establishes no means to protect them. (I understand the anarchist conception of competing defense agencies, and I toyed with the notion for several years, but the anarchist view ultimately is incoherent and unworkable). Abolishing the government is hardly the same thing as protecting individual rights, and in fact contradicts it.

Ruwart's anarchism led her to some outrageous positions, which were exploited by Barr's supporters. As Weigel (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126164.html) reviews, Ruwart writes in her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions:

Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.

Ruwart's position is ridiculous and abhorrent, yet it is typical of anti-state reactionaries. To them, arresting child pornographers is "government interference." While some anarchists may argue that competing defense agencies might defend children from pornographers, often the reactionary element wins out, as it has with Ruwart in this case.

Ruwart's position is wrong, first, because children do not acquire their full rights till adulthood (because not fully rational), and thus they do not have the right to make every decision that an adult can make. While it might be true that the prohibition of child pornography increases prices, the same can be said about the prohibition of murder for hire. The argument about prices is a useful side-issue in the drug-war debate, but that's only because producing and consuming drugs do not inherently violate rights. Murder and child pornography do inherently violate rights. If Ruwart has since revised her position, I have not read about it.

So Bob Barr's claim to fame now is that he barely beat an anarchist who defended the legality of child pornography. Barr may have lent the Libertarian Party his credibility, but the Libertarian Party has lent Barr its insanity. In this election, a vote for Bob Barr is a vote for the Libertarian Party, and that is not an organization that I wish to promote. (I learned my lesson thoroughly after working for the state LP a few years ago.)

In his May 31 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/31/kopel-dailies-shrug-off-libertarian-confab/) column, Dave Kopel reviews the media coverage of the party's convention. Unfortunately, he fails to get to the heart of the debate within the LP:

One piece [by (http://coloradoindependent.com/person/15990-cdegette) Cara DeGette] detailed the fight between Libertarian pragmatists and fundamentalists; the former wanted a platform that could appeal to the 16 percent of the U.S. population that is generally libertarian in outlook, while the latter wanted a platform that set forth maximal Libertarian goals. For example, the pragmatists wanted a platform promising to abolish the federal income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, while the fundamentalists wanted a platform demanding an end to all taxation.

Yet the problem with the anarchists is not that they are interested in fundamentals; it is that their fundamentals are wrong. The pragmatists are thus only reacting to the anti-state reactionaries. The result is that one wing endorses untenable principles, while the other wing eschews principles.

Kopel also conflates the debate over principles with the debate over strategy. Ultimately, I too believe that civil society should ban the initiation of force, of which taxation is an instance. But that doesn't mean that I do not also advocate the repeal of the income tax. Incrementalism is compatible with radicalism. I would be thrilled to live in a society in which a progressive income tax topped out at four percent. Hell, I'd be thrilled if we could merely phase out the Social Security tax, which devastates the working poor and lower-middle class, even if the income tax remained untouched. I am not against taking a bite of liberty merely because I cannot now have the whole enchilada. If politics is the art of the possible, the goal of the radical is to expand what's possible by influencing cultural debate at the deepest level.

Unfortunately, by allying himself with a party that tends toward reaction against government at the cost of individual rights, Barr has set himself up to possibly influence the election without improving the long-term prospects for liberty.

Comment by Walter: I agree with you , but this is unsound: "This is untenable. When somebody is trying to mug me, I'd really like some 'government interference.' Likewise, if a hostile foreign power tries to kill me or invade my country, I'd like the government to take strong military action." I would also like government to pay for my medical care and food, but my liking it doesn't make it good policy, nor does it mean government is the only entity able to do those things. In other words, allowing government to do things just because those things are useful is license for the government to do almost anything.

Comment by Severin: I don't see how voting for Obama will send a message that you dislike McCain. A vote for Barr would send the message more clearly as the media will claim he "stole" votes from McCain. I know you have some personal issues with the LP and will dog them every chance you get, but voting for Obama is a vote for socialism and that is the message that will be received by everyone in Washington.

Comment by Ari, October 23, 2008: Well, I wrote the original post in early June, and a lot has happened since then. Palin has alienated many moderates and independents at the same time she has energized the evangelical base. McCain bombed with his bailout shenanigans. Amazingly, Obama looks like the calm, reassuring candidate in the race. I've seen no evidence that Barr is responsible for Obama's lead in the polls. Ron Paul also endorsed the Constitution Party candidate. My sense is that so many conservatives are disgusted with McCain that many votes for Barr otherwise would go somewhere other than McCain.

Ahmadinejad Predicts U.S. Annihilation

June 3, 2008

As you read (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361705,00.html) these words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remember that this is the man whom we are allowing, through inaction and appeasement, to build nuclear bombs:

I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. ... Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.

I fear to think what it's going to take for the U.S. government and people to take this man's threats and belligerence seriously.

Peikoff 16

June 4, 2008

(http://peikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff makes a number of fascinating arguments in his (http://peikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-05-26.016.mp3.com/) sixteenth podcast.

Peikoff first addresses the alleged need for a mystic moral faculty. Apparently, a professor claimed the need for such a thing through a two-part hypothetical example. Is it okay to harvest the organs of one person to save the lives of five others? Peikoff agrees that this is wrong, because the one person is innocent.

But what if you see that a train is about to run over five people, and you are in a position to flip a switch so that the train instead runs over only one person on a different track? Peikoff again argues that this is wrong, again because the one person is innocent.

I agree with the thrust of Peikoff's argument, that we must not harm innocent parties. However, I'm not sure he's necessarily correct about the train track. I think that the cases of the emergency room and the train track are basically different. In the emergency room, we wouldn't change our mind regardless of the numbers involved. We would condemn as morally abhorrent the forcible harvesting of one person's organs even to save the lives of a million. But let's say we could keep a train from running over a whole station full of people, or deflect a nuclear bomb from New York City to a desert with a single inhabitant. I don't think deflecting the train is morally comparable to harvesting the organs, because only the latter case involves the initiation of force. If I were on a jury, I would automatically vote to convict the organ harvester, but I'd be troubled by the flip switcher. I'm inclined to categorize the case of the train as an emergency situation, outside of the normal moral context.

As Peikoff suggests, the train hypothetical is farfetched. If the people are walking on the track because of their own negligence, then they bear responsibility for their predicament. If the train company has created dangerous conditions, such that people tend to walk in front of trains, then that's a matter for the courts. Otherwise, the situation is by definition an emergency. While organ transplantation is an every-day event, I doubt that anyone could come up with more than a few examples from real life that are substantially similar to the train hypothetical. One reason that it strikes us as difficult is the fact that it's so unlikely. The overwhelming majority of people will never face any situation remotely like that. The fact that emergencies lie beyond our normal moral context does not imply mysticism or subjectivism.

Peikoff next discusses the possible character flaws of artists, the possibility of self-doubt for a moral person, and the necessity of athletes (and artists) to work in the moment, rather than try to evaluate their performance-in-progress from the perspective of history.

In answer to a question about artificial intelligence, Peikoff argues that it's philosophically impossible for a machine ever to think like a person. He argues that a machine cannot have volition. However, given the fact that humans arose through a process of non-volitional evolution, isn't it possible that humans might create an artificial being that acquires volition? Perhaps the distinction is that such a being would no longer be a machine.

Peikoff doesn't address the issue of human motivation here. Human choices are motivated; people have values and act on them. Thinking as a sort of action thus is necessarily tied to values. An artificial being would need the capacity for values as well as volition to be able to think like a human.

Finally, Peikoff addresses the question of whether the world was deterministic prior to humans. He said that the force in play was not determinism but causality; determinism is a specific doctrine that precludes the existence of volition.

The full podcast is worth a (http://peikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-05-26.016.mp3.com/) listen.

Comment by Doug Krening: Ari, I think you are correct in your assessment of the train situation. It seems to be a close parallel to the case of an airplane pilot who encounters a catastrophic mechanical failure over a populated area. He is doing the moral thing to attempt to crash in the least populated area he can find rather than in a highly populated public place. Perhaps some of the confusion in the train example is that it seems to imply an uninvolved bystander flips the switch. Instead imagine the train conductor sees the impending disaster and can control the switches. Is he being moral to switch to the less populated track? I think so. And if the conductor is acting morally, what is the difference between the conductor's actions and that of a true bystander?

Comment by Clay: I'm not sure that the point of the trainyard example was really understood. These examples were part of a study that was attempting to "prove" that morality is in some way innate. The idea was to ask a large group of people what they would do under certain circumstances and thus attempt to find some sort of evolutionary element to morality. I have no doubt that the questioner didn't understand this or asked the question poorly, but Peikoff addressing the specific morality of the specific situations didn't really address the broader issue. As far as thinking computers goes.. how different is it to have a brain that works a certain way as opposed to having a chip that works a certain way. Volition seems to be at the crux of it.. well if the factor(s) that give rise to the possibility of having a choice are themselves non-volitional causality, then perhaps we can duplicate them(by non-sexual means) and even create variants on the theme. Oh yes, and the part of the "throwing the switch" example was measuring the difference between throwing the switch to save the group rather than the one, and having to push someone off of a bridge into the path of the train to accomplish the same effect.

Ritter Throws Art Shops a Bone

June 4, 2008

I was glancing through Bill Ritter's media releases when I happened upon the (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1211966081007&pagename=GovRitter%2FGOVRLayout) following:

OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008 ...

GOV. RITTER SIGNS BILL BOOSTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ARTS

At an art gallery and framing shop in North Denver's Berkeley neighborhood, Gov. Bill Ritter today signed legislation that will further support Colorado's burgeoning arts economy, which is rapidly becoming an integral part of neighborhood economic development across the state.

HB 1105 (Frangas/Sandoval) allows art galleries to serve alcohol for up to four hours per day, for no more than 15 days per year. Permits will have to be renewed annually and the alcohol has to be complimentary. The bill requires an annual state art gallery permit fee of $50, and a local license fee of $25.

"This is good for art galleries, their patrons, for businesses and for communities," Gov. Ritter said during a signing ceremony at Metro Frame Works Custom Framing and 44 T Art Space, owned by Kevin Paul and very often occupied by his greyhounds Milo and Gracie.

"While art is definitely at the center of this, it's also about other neighborhood businesses—hardware stores, print shops, coffee houses and restaurants included," Gov. Ritter added. "This is about neighborhoods and building a sense of community."

The bill won unanimous passage in both the House and Senate.

Well, that's great—businesses can now occasionally give away alcohol by paying a mere $75 extra per year to the government. Some gift.

But this is not a case of the government "boosting" the arts; it is a case of government no longer hindering business quite as severely.

Real liberty would mean that art galleries and others could give away or sell alcohol, whenever they please, without having to first pay off the state's bureaucrats.

Perkins vs. D'Souza: Miracles

June 5, 2008

Greg Perkins continues to show why Dinesh D'Souza's Christian apologetics fails. I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/perkins-vs-dsouza-alleged-harms-of.html) reviewed his first post, regarding the alleged harms of atheism. In his (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/why-new-atheists-cant-even-beat-dsouza_28.shtml?nc) second short essay, Perkins explains why miracles are impossible.

Perkins offers a nice summary of the nature of causality and its validation. He explains especially well the fact that miracles do not merely refer to something unusual and unexplained; they refer to something supernatural:

We are not talking about just any improbable happening, and not even something which violates our current understanding of the world as expressed in scientific laws, like D'Souza tries to argue. The entire point of miracles is to provide evidence of divine intervention, and surprises which may only reveal a current lack of understanding can't accomplish that: by that measure, even the tricks of magicians would count as miracles. Indeed, much of what we enjoy in our modern world would have been considered miraculous in previous times, from vaccines and medications, to cars, and the Internet and on and on. Yet none of these prove or even suggest a possibility that there is a God. No, a meaningful miracle is not merely something which would violate the laws of nature as we currently understand them, but something which would be a violation of any such law we could ever discover. That is, it would have to be a violation of lawfulness itself.

The epistemological criticism is that miracles require a leap into faith beyond reason rooted in sensory evidence. Before people knew what caused lightning, many religionists said God caused it. The appropriate answer was, "I don't know what causes it—yet." The metaphysical criticism is that supernaturalism, upon which miracles are based, contradicts the law of causality.

Unions Fight for Higher Health Costs

June 5, 2008

Brian Schwartz has pointed out that Colorado's union bosses are trying to further screw over Colorado workers—so long as the unions expand their power. Schwartz (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2008/06/04/the-big-lie-behind-politician-controlled-medicine/) writes:

Re: (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9338620) "Who has your health at heart?" May 22 guest commentary.

AFL-CIO executives John Sweeney and Mike Cerbo perpetuate the big lie behind politician-controlled medicine: that the free market is not working and that costs have been spiraling out of control because of markets.

But costs have been increasing precisely because of the employer-based insurance they espouse, which is a consequence of a biased and non-free-market tax code. It favors employer-based insurance and penalizes other types of medical insurance.

We consume medical care like a business traveler dining on the company's expense account: Since someone else pays the bill (insurers), patients need not shop around, so providers don't compete on price. ...

Employer-based insurance also coddles insurance companies, which have little incentive to please consumers. They know we're essentially locked to our employer and the costly insurance plans they offer. To buy a competitor's product, we must change jobs or pay a stiff tax penalty.

The AFL-CIO should be ashamed of promoting self-serving policies that both empower labor unions and result in expensive medical care and insurance.

Schwartz covers additional angles of the health-policy debate at (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) Patient Power. And Paul Hsieh discusses problems with the British system and other issues at the (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/index.html) FIRM blog.

Nevertheless, with a Democratic legislature (and a weak-spined Republican minority), we continue to suffer the further socialization of health care. For example, Governor Bill Ritter recently (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1212484904808&pagename=GovRitter%2FGOVRLayout) bragged about signing eleven health-related bills, most of which expand political control of medicine.

Colorado's advocates of individual rights in medicine have stopped the worst plans and slowed down the political takeover of medicine. If you care about your health and your liberty, now is the time to join them.

Faith-Based Welfare for Obama's Former Church

June 6, 2008

Jeff Goldblatt (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/obamas-ex-church-has-won-15m-in-federal-grant-money/) reports for Fox:

FOX News has learned that over the last 15 years, Trinity [United Church of Christ in Chicago] has received at least $15 million in grants from the federal government...

Records show this money supported a variety of outreach: everything from low income housing to nutritional programs for needy kids to money for HIV/AIDS education. [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright blames the government for intentionally infecting the African-American community with that deadly virus.

I'm sure that the church provides welfare as well as many secular organizations. That's not the point. The point is that I would never voluntarily donate a cent to that church for any reason whatever, and I'm confident that many Americans share the opinion. Forcing people to fund a church against their wishes is a violation of their freedom of conscience and an intrusion of politics into religion and vice versa.

Open Letter to Senators McCain and Obama

June 6, 2008

Below is my letter to Senators McCain and Obama explaining my anticipated vote for this Fall. This letter is in part a response to Severin's (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/barr-beats-anarchist.html) concern, "I don't see how voting for Obama will send a message that you dislike McCain. ... [V]oting for Obama is a vote for socialism and that is the message that will be received by everyone in Washington." Publicly expressing the reasons for my vote and sending the letter to the two campaigns should make my intentions clear.

First, though, I want to discuss the politics a bit. Previously I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/barr-beats-anarchist.html) predicted that "McCain will Dukakisize" Obama. Now I'm not so sure.

Obama is a good speaker and an attractive man, and those are the two most important points in his favor (which doesn't say much for the American public). But his far-left ties will alienate many voters, particular rural ones. Nor will he excite the pro-Israel left.

McCain is a horrible speaker, as a left-wing YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4) video illustrates. He's about as exciting as a box of Depends. I doubt that McCain does well with women or younger voters. He's irritated various leaders of the religious right, and he's enraged the libertarian right with his campaign censorship law. So I don't know how excited his base will be to work for him. (It will be interesting to see whether Clinton's supporters can get fully behind Obama.)

McCain is from the Interior West, but the Interior West generally hates him. Romney stomped McCain in Colorado, for example. The Interior West also hates the Clintons, so Obama cleaned up. While I'm tempted to say that Obama's far-left ties will alienate Interior West voters more than McCain's populist-right statism will, I'm not entirely sure about this.

McCain seems to have a better shot at taking Florida, as McCain (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/01/29/mccain-romney-too-close-to-call-clinton-takes-early-lead-in-florida-primary/) won the primary there, while Obama didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008) seem to do as well.

Obama is actually beating McCain according to some markers. The University of Iowa's (http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/Pres08.html) U.S. Presidential Election Market shows Obama leading. A Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) poll from today reports: "Obama now attracts 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%. That five-point lead for Obama is up from a two-point advantage over the past couple of days. Before that, for much of last week, McCain had enjoyed a slight edge."

Rasmussen also (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/78_would_vote_for_black_candidate_less_sure_of_friends) reports that "11% say they are not willing to vote for an African-American presidential candidate." While it's unpleasant to consider that over a tenth of the country seems to be racist (but perhaps they're merely unreliable poll takers), I doubt that any of those votes would have gone to Hillary, either.

The upshot is that, while I think McCain will win, my previous prediction probably was premature given the earliness of the season.

Nevertheless, barring some sort of surprising revelation or new twist, I've already decided to cast the strongest vote possible against McCain by marking in Obama. Following are my reasons.

[July 21, 2008, Update: I have changed my mind on this issue for reasons (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/07/how-obama-lost-another-vote.html) explained elsewhere. I see no reason to send Obama a new letter updating him on my position, as last time his campaign just sent me a generic, non-responsive letter, anyway.]

Open Letter to Senators McCain and Obama

Dear Senators McCain and Obama,

I am saddened that you two are my choices for President. I cannot vote in favor of any candidate this year. However, I deem that McCain is the worst evil in the race, and therefore I've decided to mark my ballot for Obama as the strongest possible vote against McCain.

My vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any idea or policy that Obama advocates. In my estimation, Obama is essentially a socialist in orientation who would do everything in his power to expand political control of the economy. My only hope is that, should Obama win, he will be too weak a president to further muck up the economy too badly.

While I detest many things about both candidates, I offer three main reasons for voting against McCain.

1. I cannot vote for any candidate who gloats about shredding the First Amendment. McCain's campaign censorship law is despicable and unforgivable.

2. McCain's web page (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) states that the candidate advocates "ending abortion." I cannot vote for any candidate who promotes faith-based politics at the expense of individual rights. While I also fear that Obama will erode the separation of church and state, at least rhetorically he has endorsed the principle, and I believe that the Democratic party would reign in some potential abuses in this area.

3. While Obama's foreign policy of appeasement frightens me, McCain's (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) call to "sacrifice your life" frightens me even more. I favor strong military defense of American lives. Unfortunately, McCain seems intent on following or expanding Bush's policy of sacrificing American lives for endless occupations that weaken America's defenses without defeating the enemy.

Again, even though my vote will add to Obama's column, my vote should not be taken as support for Obama or anything that he stands for, but only my opposition to McCain.

Maybe someday a candidate for president will actually earn my vote, but this is not the year for that.

Sincerely,

Ari Armstrong

If you wish to explain your intended vote to the candidates, following are their campaign addresses.

John McCain 2008
P.O. Box 16118
Arlington, VA 22215

Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

Comment by Greg: Ari, I have been a long time subscriber to your emails and I agree with many of your positions. However, I am in total disagreement with you about John McCain verses "Osama" Obama. Sen. Barrack Obama is a die hard socialist. He made this clear on numerous occations over the summer before his chances of being the Dem. nominee became clear. He made clear his intensions to entreat with socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, and Fascist Dictator Achmadenajhad without preconditions and in light of what these two despots have said about capitalism, freedom, and liberty in general. His commencement speech at Wesleyen college was very telling about who this man is. He told the graduates they had an obligation to society to serve the collective and he hoped they would resist the trappings of the "money market." I don't give a hoot about what color he is, what his religion is, or even his who his radical friends and associates are. What I do care about is his ideology. McCain's ideology is firmly and unquestionably Capitalist. Obama's is Socialist as shown in his Socialist-Medical plan, his desire to build labor armies (i.e. volunteer organizations that emphasize collective rather than individual values) and his distain for small-business by wanting to raise taxes on income and dividends.
As a classical-Liberal (in the Von Mises sense of the term) I too am disgusted with the choices for president this election cycle, but for the love of the freedom and the blood spilt to preserve it over the last two Centuries I cannot vote for a socialist. No country to date has escaped the mass political murders and tyranny that comes with this type of government. I totally agree with your gripes about McCain; it is my opinion they are valid. However, I must also think about the future of this great Republic when I cast my vote and compare the candidates voting records to the Bill of Rights and see which candidate has voted to violate it the least. Obama's record on gun-control, property rights, and government interference is abhorrent. McCain's isn't much better, but it IS better, and too me at least, that's what counts. Therefore, allow me to state that I respectfully disagree with your decision to vote for Obama and in turn I shall hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Comment by Nicholas Provenzo: Ari wrote: "While Obama's foreign policy of appeasement frightens me, McCain's call to "sacrifice your life" frightens me even more." I think that's the key line here. McCain's call is not one of the usual socialist vagaries; it's an explicit call for a new degree of sacrifice in America and it chills me too. Nevertheless, I haven't decided exactly what I'm going to do with my vote come November. I view my vote as valuable as the chance that it can decide the election, which is slim to none (especially given where I live). Quite frankly, I'm inclined to sit the whole thing out; I sanction none of it and choose to dedicate myself to the larger and more pressing task of fighting for the intellectual sea change that will spare us these irritating and near-fruitless moral dilemmas (and that's not to say that I don't recognize this post and your position as part of that same struggle). Quite frankly, I simply hate that the fate our nation has come to this.

Comment by Mark Call: Evil is evil, and voting for Idi Amin in protest to Adolf is about as stupid as shooting yourself to protest gun control. You want to send a message? Do what Jefferson wrote about and withdraw the "consent of the governed". Don't support a game you know is rigged—someone will rightfully observe that you asked for it.

Liggett, Hsieh Oppose 'Personhood' Amendment 48

June 8, 2008

Amendment 48, the Colorado ballot measure that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, has provoked passionate and reasoned opposition. The Denver Post recently published pieces by Gina Liggett and Diana Hsieh.

Liggett (http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9467797) writes:

The Thomas More Law Center, which provides legal support for these groups, calls itself "the sword and shield for people of (Christian) faith" to fight for Christian values, which it claims are the foundation of our nation. Kristi Burton, the founder of CER, was quoted in denverpost.com (1-1/14/07) saying "we have God. And he is all we need." ...

If this barbaric "personhood" amendment passes, whose rights will prevail when a woman has a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy? Will a girl who's been raped be compelled against her will to carry a pregnancy resulting from that brutality? Will lawyers defending fertilized eggs argue that a miscarriage is a violation of an embryo's right to life, making a woman and her physician legally negligent? ... Many reliable birth control methods would have to be outlawed because they interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg. Couples unable to conceive would be forbidden to try in-vitro fertilization because some of the lab-created fertilized eggs are not used.

And Hsieh (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2008/06/08/personhood-amendment-3-letters/) writes:

A woman's fundamental right to control her own body, including her right to terminate or sustain a pregnancy, should not depend on majority vote. This would violate that right in spades, based on the fantasy that an embryo is equal to an infant. It would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg—even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams.

Hsieh's letter appears with two others, one for and one against. The first refers to an alleged "impossibility to decide doctrinal merits," while the other states, without argument, "We believe that human life [a person] begins at conception." The first letter expresses skepticism, the second religion, while Hsieh's letter offers a positive moral theory based on the facts of reality and the requirements of human life. At least the debate over Amendment 48 takes us to fundamentals.

The USA

June 8, 2008

The other day I was discussing Health Savings Accounts with a friend. I pointed out that my wife and I love our account, which saves us hundreds of dollars every month by allowing us to buy high-deductible insurance and pay out-of-pocket expenses pre-tax . I joked, "Now all we need is a Pet Savings Account for the vet, and we'll be set."

Obviously that's not going to happen, but it occurred to me that a Universal Savings Account could include other important expenses—food, housing, clothing, etc. Call it the USA. Why should the working poor and middle class pay taxes on their basic needs?

Unfortunately, the country in which we live is no longer compatible with the values of the USA. Instead, the working poor and middle class are hammered with a net Social Security tax of nearly 15 percent, which makes it incredibly hard for many people to get ahead. Even if some are spared most other income taxes, they still pay all sorts of taxes on food, housing, cars, etc.

Ultimately, though, what we need are not new specialized tax breaks, but reductions in government spending, accompanied by general tax cuts.

'Imagine No Religion'

June 9, 2008

At least The Denver Post's Electa Draper has (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9524585) written about something other than a religious group or theme. She has turned her attention to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which has purchased a Denver billboard stating, "Imagine No Religion."

The following segment of Draper's article gave me an exasperated chuckle:

Passer-by Joseph Sanchez, 23, said the billboard didn't upset him but that he doesn't agree with it.

"I'm not really big on organized religion, but I love religion," Sanchez said. "It's important for people to keep religion somewhere in the back of their mind but not to take it too seriously."

The ultimate effect of pragmatism on Americans is that many of them no longer take ideas—any ideas—seriously.

Unfortunately, FFRF's message is a bad one. The group explicitly (http://ffrf.org/news/2008/denver_billboard_pub.php) refers to John Lennon's song "Imagine," which (http://www.lyrics007.com/John%20Lennon%20Lyrics/Imagine%20Lyrics.html) anticipates global socialism of "no countries" and "no possessions."

We don't have to imagine the consequences of Marxism: we need merely look to the Soviet Union and Maoist China, which slaughtered scores of millions.

The absence of religion is no substitute for the presence of a rational, this-worldly morality rooted in the requirements of the individual's life and mind.

Air-Powered Cars

June 9, 2008

As Americans see gas soar to the $4 per gallon range—thanks to the environmentalist assault on energy production—(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7243247.stm) BBC News and (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Air_car_runs_on_compressed_air_0104.html) Raw Story report that India's Tata Motors is gearing up to produce cars based on French technology of compressed air.

I have to admit this idea of running cars on compressed air had never occurred to me. You can pump air directly into the car or plug in the internal compressor. Tata is also working on a carbon-compression hybrid that BBC News reports can yield 120 miles per gallon. Clever.

Of course, as BBC also points out, the cars are light-weight and therefore, I suspect, quite a lot more dangerous than the cars to which Americans are accustomed. Still, they might be fine for slower-speed city driving. If they catch on a toll-road might even find it useful to create small-car lanes.

Obviously, compressing air is not free. It requires energy. I'm interested to learn how the Indians plan to compress the air. I'm also interested in what the energy loss is between the first power source and the power of the compressed air.

I wonder whether it might be possible to harness wind to compress air, rather than use wind turbines to generate electricity. (We may never know, because now all the subsidies are going to the turbines.)

A huge problem is that compressed air seems hard to transport. A nuclear generator could power the air compression, but unless we're talking about new, smaller nuclear plants it seems more effective to transport the electricity rather than the compressed air. That seems more promising for electric cars, if people can ever figure out how to produce better, cheaper batteries. I guess the question, then, is whether it's more effective to convert electricity to battery charges or to compressed air. And which system promises to provide the longest drives?

Even though the new technology runs into numerous immediate problems, it's interesting.

The best way to promote new technologies is to cut government spending and taxes, eliminate special-interest pandering, cut controls on production, and generally restore the government to protecting individual rights rather than mismanaging the economy.

Westminster Train Derailment Under Criminal Investigation

June 10, 2008

by Ari Armstrong, 3:00 a.m., June 10, 2008
All photographs and audio files may be reproduced with attribution to FreeColorado.com. High-resolution photos and audio files are linked below. (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/train-derailment-update.html) Read the morning update.

A "tree stump or some type of large tree branch" caused a Burlington Northern train to derail late June 9 in Westminster, leading to a criminal investigation, Investigator Trevor Materasso of the Westminster Police Department (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train2.mp3 -- audio file not available online) said. Investigators did not know whether the train, headed north near 92nd and Wadsworth, derailed by accident or crime.

Three people were aboard the train, and one was transported for minor injuries, Materasso said. The train, which derailed at about 10:36 p.m., carried "all non-hazardous material." While some residents in the area were contacted, none was evacuated. As of midnight, Westminster firemen were "working on plugging" a "very small leak" in a diesel tank on the front engine. The derailment involved 37 cars and four locomotives, Materasso said.

A man living across Wadsworth (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train1.mp3) said, "I heard like thunder. I heard the train engine, the whistle, and then not a minute later I heard all this big grinding and thunder noise. I looked out my window and saw sparks coming from the train from the lead engine, and then it just stopped."

Materasso said it's "unknown how long the tracks are going to be shut down." The rail appeared to be twisted off of the bed near several derailed cars. Materasso urged drivers to avoid that section of Wadsworth if possible during the cleanup. [All the derailed cars are south of the light at Independence, the 96th block, and Wadsworth Parkway.]

Anyone with relevant information can call the Westminster Police Department at (303) 430—2400 x5, Materasso said.

Shortly after midnight, police handcuffed at least one of three men on the train track just north of the wrecked engine. Materasso said that field interviews of people in the area are standard.

Photographs and Linked Files

(http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train1.mp3 -- audio not available online) Interview with Witness

(http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train2.mp3 -- audio not available online) Interview with Investigator Trevor Materasso

(http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train1.mov -- video not available online) First Video

(http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train2.mov -- video not available online) Second Video

Thanks to my wife Jennifer, who took all of the photographs except for the first one.

Train Derailment Update

June 10, 2008

by Ari Armstrong, 11:40 a.m., June 10, 2008
All photographs and audio files may be reproduced with attribution to FreeColorado.com. High-resolution photos and audio files are linked below.

It remains "too early to determine" whether accident or crime caused the late June 9 (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/westminster-train-derailment-under.html) train derailment in Westminster, (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train3.mp3 -- audio not available online) said Investigator Trevor Materasso of the Westminster Police Department around 11:00 a.m. "We haven't made any arrests," and the investigation remains "very preliminary," he said.

Materasso said that sixteen of the total 37 train cars derailed, in addition to four locomotives.

He said, "Burlington Northern is taking over the lead in the investigation... We're asking people to recognize that this is a crime scene... We want to ensure that evidence and things aren't tampered with so that the investigation can continue without any problems."

One of the two northbound lanes of Wadsworth Parkway is expected to remain closed south of Independence (the 96th block) "at least through rush hour" and "possibly indefinitely," Materasso said; "Burlington Northern is still bringing in a lot of equipment."

(http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/trainderail/train3.mp3) Morning Interview with Investigator Trevor Materasso

Personal Note

As I was the first journalist on the scene and (so far as I know) the first to publish (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/westminster-train-derailment-under.html) the story, perhaps some readers will be interested to learn how this political analyst picked up a story about a derailed train. The short answer is that I live across the street, and I had the time and equipment to cover the story.

I didn't hear anything because I live in a complex on the far side of the wreck. My neighbor alerted me just after 10:30 p.m. that a train had derailed. It took me a moment to figure out what he was saying; I responded merely, "What?!"

My neighbor was understandably concerned about possible hazardous materials on the train; fortunately, there were none. We walked down Wadsworth to get this news. I briefly considered the residents I'd need to help evacuate if there had been any need; thankfully there wasn't. (I don't know about the restrictions of hazardous materials through residential areas on trains, but I assume there are some.)

I tried to imagine what might have caused the derailment; there are no crossing tracks in the area, so a collision between crossing trains was impossible. I figured that either the rail or engine had failed.

I had grabbed my camera, and I asked my wife to follow with a tripod and my audio recorder. We snapped a few pictures as police taped off the area. I totally understand why the police asked onlookers to clear the area. We respected the police boundaries, yet I asserted my right to cover the story.

One officer told me that a spokesperson would be available at a make-shift command center in a parking lot south of the derailment. My wife and I walked there, where we saw an ambulance treating two people. (We learned that only one went to the hospital for minor injuries, thankfully.) The police officers were professional and courteous. One officer told me that a spokesperson would actually go to the north of the accident, so we walked back across the street, up the road, and back over.

As we walked to the area designated for the spokesperson, an officer on a motorcycle asked us to leave the area, and I noted I was headed for the spokesperson. "You're in a crime area," the officer said. That got my attention; it hadn't occurred to me that the derailment might have been intentional. We soon learned that the cause of the derailment was a tree stump or branch on the tracks, which is indeed suspicious, because I don't think railroads tend to leave large trees overhanging their tracks.

I believe 7News was the second media outlet to arrive (after me). Soon camera operators from four stations mulled about. I learned that they usually get such tips from police scanners, rather than from people calling in. As Materasso prepared to give his interview for the cameras, three of the operators asked me to hold their mikes, as I was already holding up my recorder.

I was thankful that nobody was badly hurt but pained to see the physical destruction. It's quite a wreck. And, if somebody placed the impediment intentionally, it's a large crime that destroyed a great deal of property and endangered people's lives. Given that the wreck happened near my house, I was keen to report it. I'm grateful to the Westminster Police for accommodating the media, including me. I feel I lived up to my journalistic responsibilities.

Derailed Train: BNSF Railway Addresses Injury, Fuel Leak

June 10, 2008

"The cause [of the June 9 train derailment in Westminster] obviously was the tree stump that was on the track. How the stump came to be on the track is still a matter of investigation," said Steve Forsberg of (http://www.bnsf.com/) BNSF Railway in a telephone interview. (BNSF is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF) formerly the Burlington Northern Santa Fe.)

Read the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/westminster-train-derailment-under.html) first and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/train-derailment-update.html) second story about the derailment.

Forsberg said that BNSF's police officers will continue to work with the Westminster Police Department to investigate the derailment. BNSF hires "dozens and dozens of police officers" from public departments to work their system, Forsberg said, noting that the officers have the same powers as those on public forces.

Forsberg said the officers, who report to Denver, have the option of working with state and federal agencies if necessary. "At this point in time, the investigation is being handled by the Westminster Police and the BNSF Railway police."

Forsberg wasn't sure how fast the train was traveling when it struck the obstruction. "It would have been slowing. The train crew was trying to bring the train to a stop," but the train "did make impact with the stump," Forsberg said.

"Fortunately no one was fatally injured," he said, though a brakeman reported pain in his neck and back and was treated and examined. Forsberg didn't know whether the brakeman has been released from treatment.

The train held "several thousand gallons" of fuel and had just been refueled. Forsberg offered no firm estimate of how much fuel leaked, saying that the amount would be calculated based on how much was removed from the tanks.

"Where the fuel did leak, there was a dyke created to prevent it from migrating any further," Forsberg said, adding that BNSF contracted with an environmental cleanup company to handle leaked fuel.

Cost of damages is "something that's still being assessed... we're reluctant to put out a number that is not firm," Forsberg said.

The train was hauling items such as paper, lumber, and malt, Forsberg said, adding that it carried nothing hazardous.

Does the route ever handle hazardous material? Forsberg said there are "not that many trains that use that route," and few trains carry anything potentially hazardous. He said that most items classified as hazardous are items such as perfume and cologne, cleaning products, batteries, lighter fluid, and paint. He said that only three-tenths of one percent of train cargo is "highly volatile material" such as chlorine or ammonia; thus, it is very unlikely that any given train could possibly release dangerous chemicals.

"Railroads are actually the safest mode of transportation for hazardous material," Forsberg said, noting that trucks have higher accident rates. Moreover, federal "must carry" regulations require train companies to haul hazardous materials, Forsberg said.

Forsberg anticipated that the area would be cleaned up and the track repaired within 36 hours of the derailment, meaning sometime on June 11. "We'll see how work progresses today," he said.

"In the meantime, we're rerouting trains towards Sterling Colorado, and then coming into Denver from the northeast," he said.

Stem-Cell Progress

June 11, 2008

The June 6 Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/06/miracles-in-making/) reports advances in stem-cell research and argues against restrictions:

The announcement Tuesday that an Aurora spinal surgeon performed the first disc surgery in the United States using somatic (adult) stem cells to repair the patient's injured spine is the latest tangible advance in this path-breaking therapy. The company that grew the patient's stem cells from his own bone marrow, Regenerative Sciences Inc., is based in Westminster.

Another potential breakthrough comes from the University of Minnesota Children's Hospital. Last fall, physicians used somatic stem cells to treat recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, a rare but fatal genetic skin and digestive disorder in children.

Remarkably, seven months after surgery, 25-month-old Nate Liao shows signs of normal development—and a brother who also has the disease received similar treatment May 30.

The editorial is critical of Bush's restrictions of stem-cell research: "The president refuses to update a 2001 executive order limiting federal research on embryonic stem cells to a few dozen existing lines—twice he has vetoed legislation reversing that order."

For those looking for a bit of good news about the presidential candidates, here it is: "Sen. Barack Obama has said he would reverse the executive order; Sen. John McCain hasn't publicly gone that far, but he voted for both earlier bills" to overturn Bush's order.

The simple fact is the U.S. Congress cannot possibly predict which lines of research will prove useful. The federal government ought not be involved in scientific research, but, so long as it is, it should not discriminate based on religious dogmas. Faith that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul is the only "reason" to restrict stem-cell research. The consequence is that real people risk pain and death that might otherwise be treatable.

Railway Suspects Crime in Derailment

June 11, 2008

Tillie Fong of the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/10/train-derails-after-hitting-tree-westminster/) reports that the train derailment in Westminster is now considered a crime.

After writing a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/westminster-train-derailment-under.html) first, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/train-derailment-update.html) second, and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/derailed-train-bnsf-railway-addresses.html) third story about the derailment, I now defer to the Rocky. Here is the key new information:

Officials believe that the tree trunk was deliberately placed on the tracks two hours before the train derailed, about 8:30 p.m. A resident had called Westminster police, warning about the stump in the tracks in the 9000 block of Pierce St.

"An officer removed the tree stump," said Heather Wood, spokeswoman for Westminster police. "He moved it to the side of the railroad track and rolled it off the embankment. We didn't get any calls that the stump was back up."

However, at 10:36 p.m. Monday, a local shipping train, carrying lumber, paper, malt and sugar, ran into the same tree stump that was back on the tracks in the same area.

What's interesting about this is that the Westminster Police (or at least some officers) knew immediately that the derailment was a crime, yet they did not release this information until Tuesday afternoon or evening. (I posted my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/derailed-train-bnsf-railway-addresses.html) interview with Steve Forsberg at about 2:00 p.m., just after talking with him, and Fong's story that quotes Forsberg about the crime is marked 10:33 p.m.) Perhaps the delay was caused by slow processing of information, or perhaps police thought that the perpetrator(s) would be more likely to reveal themselves without a pronounced criminal investigation. The delay of information might also have delayed public involvement in finding the perpetrator(s).

Did the Westminster Police contact the railway police? I wonder whether somebody was patrolling the tracks in the area, especially before the next scheduled train.

Fong also reveals a couple of interesting details: the injured brakeman "was released Tuesday," and crews are working to "replace 702 feet of track."

Fong adds, "Anyone with information about the tree stump or who placed it on the tracks should contact Burlington Northern Santa Fe police at 1-800-832-5452. Tipsters can also call CrimeStoppers at 720-913-STOP."

I sent Forsberg a few follow-up questions, the answers to which I'll post when I get them:

1. Did Westminster Police contact railway police about the stump when it was first removed from the tracks, prior to the 10:36 p.m. collision?

2. Was anyone patrolling the tracks in that area prior to the train derailment?

3. Do you have the estimates for the amount of fuel leaked or the cost of damages at this time?

4. We discussed this issue a little, but I'd like to know how many times per year trains carrying hazardous materials of different sorts travel the track on which the derailment occurred.

12:37 p.m. Update, June 11

I tried to post the above post late June 10, but Blogger was having problems. Following is Steve Forsberg's reply to my questions:

"You should put the first two questions to the Westminster PD as I don't have any information on that. I do know our people have praised Police efforts to support BNSF.

"Spilled fuel estimates have been lowered to 200-300 gallons and 100 gallons of lube oil. I don't know how many haz mat shipments move on that route. It would be a low number as there are only 6 or 7 trains a day that use that track."

Also, the Rocky Mountain News now (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/11/reward-offered-in-deliberate-derailment/) reports that "Burlington Northern Santa Fe repaired and reopened the track at the site of Monday night's derailment by 10 this morning..."

Gibbon on Roman Religion

June 12, 2008

Finally I'm reading Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (I know; it's about time. Gibbon assumes more background knowledge than I have, so thank goodness for Wikipedia). I came across this interested quote from the first part of Chapter II of the first volume:

The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosophers, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.

While the era had some serious problems, such as slavery, which Gibbon describes elsewhere, and while Christian unity did bring some advantages, on the whole "mutual indulgence" has a lot going for it.

I am not so much concerned that many people do not regard all religions as equally true; what concerns me is that many philosophers fail to see them as equally false, and many political leaders find right-wing Christianity particularly useful.

Internet Explorer Problems

June 12, 2008

It has come to my attention that this page does not load correctly on Internet Explorer. I tried a fix today that didn't work. If anybody knows how to fix this problem, please let me know.

Should Government Own Wilderness?

June 12, 2008

The following article originally (http://gjfreepress.com/article/20080609/OPINION/674963734) appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press on June 9.

Should the government own, manage wilderness?

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Just how far do we want to push our free-market agenda? The short answer is all the way. A free market means that people's rights to control their resources and associate with others voluntarily, so long as they don't violate the rights of others, are consistently protected. It means that the initiation of force is outlawed. The alternative is coercion: taking people's resources by force and and threatening them with jail for not doing what you want.

Here's how the argument has developed so far. On April 28, we (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/tax-subsidized-recreation-brings.html) argued that government (including the town of Fruita) should not forcibly take money from people to subsidize recreation facilities.

On May 12 we (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/05/politics-imposes-external-harms.html) replied to Keith J. Pritchard's concern about externalities, in this case a benefit (such as keeping kids off the streets) not funded by the beneficiaries. We argued that, by Pritchard's reasoning, government should seize control of the entire economy. "The system of individual rights provides justice as well as the best framework for solving economic problems," we wrote.

But, Pritchard complained, we did not address one of his points. By our logic, Pritchard wrote, "we should auction off all public parks, BLM land, State Parks, and National Forest to the highest bidder!"

A lot of conservatives would reply to such a challenge by invoking pragmatism: "Of course we don't want to auction off public lands, but we need a balanced approach that lets government subsidize only some things, not others, and take by force only some of our money, not all of it." Regular readers know that's not our answer.

Pritchard's complaint is intended to cut off any principled approach. If we want wilderness areas, then what's wrong with Fruita subsidizing a recreation facility? Surely we have to compromise and agree that government must control some industries, even if there's no clear standard to decide what government should control and what should be left to the voluntarist free market.

We refuse to sanction the mixed economy, the current blend of some liberty and some socialist controls. We advocate liberty, all the time, without exception.

Politically, of course, it's usually easier to stop the government takeover of something new (such as a recreation facility) than to restore a government-controlled entity to the free market. Even though there's no reason whatever for the national government to run trains or deliver the mail, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the United States Post Office have resisted market reforms. Trains and mail remain largely socialized industries.

At least government-run businesses should be self-financing. For example, the gasoline tax is a fairly effective fee-for-use that funds government-owned roads. In Denver, though some lines of the RTD receive heavy subsidies, properly the lines should charge enough to cover costs. If people are not willing to pay enough to ride on a line to keep it operational, it should be closed down.

Many government-run wilderness areas require fees. If you head up the road to Vega Reservoir, you'll find that you must purchase a state park's pass. The showers there cost money. The campgrounds and facilities should charge enough to cover all costs, so as not to unfairly compete with the private facilities near the lake. If you go to Rocky Mountain National Park, you'll pay a fee at the gate.

We ask a simple question: why do you think government does a better job managing wilderness areas than individuals and organizations would do on a free market? The pine-beetle infestation is at least partly the result of inept forest management.

Do you think government would do a better job building cars, growing food, erecting houses, and sewing clothes? People tried that in the last century, and it didn't work out so well. Then why do you think government is uniquely qualified to manage wilderness areas?

We do not, as Pritchard claims, think all wilderness areas should be sold to the highest bidder. In some cases, the land should be given or sold to its current users. For example, Powderhorn leases most of its land from the Forest Service, and the company has a vested interest in caring for the land.

It seems that organizations like the Sierra Club complain most loudly about federal wilderness management. Therefore, we suggest simply giving many federal lands to the Sierra Club or similar groups. We're confident they would do a good job managing the land, and they'd be more open to charging fees for use and even drilling to pay for land management. The rest could be transfered to a privatized Forest Service or sold, with the proceeds used to pay down the national debt.

We enjoy wilderness areas as much as the next person. We also enjoy eating. That doesn't mean we want the government to nationalize farms or forests. America is about liberty, and that is the principle to which we should return.

Comment by Justin: Ari, You said, "We advocate liberty, all the time, without exception." Does that include law and security as well?

Comment by Ari: I'm not sure what Justin is asking. I advocate laws necessary to protect individual rights and the security that results. I oppose laws that violate individual rights as well as alleged security provided to some through the forced redistribution of wealth.

Comment by Justin: I was insinuating that law and security can be provided privately—which is the only way to procure those goods/services while still adhering to the principles of liberty all the time without exception.

The Religious Left

June 13, 2008

Electa Draper, apparently, The Denver Post's dedicated religious writer (which itself says something), (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9571047) reports:

A coalition determined to change the face of faith in the public square met Thursday night in Denver.

"We Believe Colorado" is a diverse group of faith leaders seeking to broaden the values debate for 2008, according to organizers. The group is challenging the political agenda set by social conservatives and the religious right in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Thursday's event combined worship and training for effective advocacy on moral issues such as civil rights, the environment and economic justice. ...

Issues this year include lifting people out of poverty, equitable public education, affordable health care, a just immigration policy offering paths to legal status and families' reunifications, progressive taxes and government budgets that embody the common good.

Here's the group's (http://www.webelievecolorado.org/) official web page, by the way.

There's an important difference between the religious left and the religious right. The religious left is the same as the regular ol' left. It advocates the same socialist policies that have been tossed around since FDR and Johnson. The religious left is an outreach program of the left to the Christian community.

The religious right, on the other hand, promotes an agenda of banning abortions, censorship, and state promotion of religion that others considered to be on "the right" (particularly the libertarian right) oppose.

I side with the new group on matters of civil rights and immigration (though I'm sure we differ on what constitutes a right), but what's distinctive about those issues is that they are neither left-wing nor religious in nature.

What worries me is the distinct possibility of ending up with a combination of the worst policies of the religious left and right: theocratic socialism.

Comment by Bob Sanders: Objectivists often speak of the "Right" but I wonder if we really need to define what we mean by that. Consider that there are all of these under the Conservative Big Tent: NeoConservatives, PaleoConservatives, Fundamentalist Conservatives, Cultural Conservatives, Traditionalist Conservatives, Racialist Conservatives, Libertarians, Paleo-Libertarians, Anachro-Libertarians, Free Market Conservatives, South Park Conservatives, Classical Liberals. Is there anything in common with all of these other than they don't agree with the Left? The Term "Conservative" increasingly confuses me.

Comment by Mark Call: "What worries me is the distinct possibility of ending up with a combination of the worst policies of the religious left and right: theocratic socialism." It's not a "possibility", Ari—it's a certainty. For all practical purposes, we're there; a squishy EcoTheology GaiaGod who demands Sustainable Public-Private partnerships in support of the GoddessMotherChrist, and will gladly sacrifice everything you thought you owned to achieve that Nirvana. Put your guns on the altar and show us your biometric ID, bitte.

Supreme Decision Due on D.C. Handgun Ban

June 13, 2008

The Supreme Court's D.C. gun-ban ruling is due soon.

Dave Kopel (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_08-2008_06_14.shtml#1213366279) writes,

The Brady Campaign's preemptive announcement of defeat in District of Columbia v. Heller contains an interesting bit of spin:

But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.

"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.

Plus ca "change," plus c'est la meme chose. In 2000, the NRA endorsed Texas Governor George W. Bush, who supported a similar provision regarding gun shows. Accordingly, the NRA's endorsement of McCain is not good evidence that gun control is more popular in 2008 than it was in 2000.

Of course, in my book this speaks well neither of McCain nor of the NRA.

But the important part is that the Brady Campaign expects to lose. ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5055064&page=1) reports:

The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

In other words, the goal of the Brady Campaign now is to restrict the "individual right" to own a gun as severely as possible.

The Wages of Mysticism

June 14, 2008

If you thought the days of witch burnings were behind us, here's the latest (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/06/12/kenya.witches/index.html) news from Kenya:

In late May, news outlets in Kenya told the story of 15 people, mostly elderly women, who were murdered in a witch hunt near the town of Kisii. The killings shocked the nation.

Villagers said more than 100 people gathered machetes and knives and stormed the village of Kegogi after midnight.

"They started banging on the doors, they broke into the house and then they killed our grandmother inside," says Justus Bosire. "The mob was screaming and we panicked. We ran away and they came to our house and burned it to the ground."

When Bosire returned to his grandmother's house, he found her dead on the floor in a bed of embers. His father is missing.

"They claim that my grandmother and father were practicing witches," Bosire says.

And you're in deep trouble if you have light skin in Tanzania, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/world/africa/08albino.html) reports The New York Times (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/06/death-by-superstition.shtml) (via Noodle Food):

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania—Samuel Mluge steps outside his office and scans the sidewalk. His pale blue eyes dart back and forth, back and forth, trying to focus. The sun used to be his main enemy, but now he has others. Mr. Mluge is an albino, and in Tanzania now there is a price for his pinkish skin. "I feel like I am being hunted," he said.

Discrimination against albinos is a serious problem throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but recently in Tanzania it has taken a wicked twist: at least 19 albinos, including children, have been killed and mutilated in the past year, victims of what Tanzanian officials say is a growing criminal trade in albino body parts.

Many people in Tanzania—and across Africa, for that matter—believe albinos have magical powers. They stand out, often the lone white face in a black crowd, a result of a genetic condition that impairs normal skin pigmentation and strikes about 1 in 3,000 people here. Tanzanian officials say witch doctors are now marketing albino skin, bones and hair as ingredients in potions that are promised to make people rich.

We in the science-minded West find such stories difficult to fathom. Yet such mystic-based brutality used to be widespread throughout Europe.

The wages of mysticism is death.

The Failing GOP

June 14, 2008

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/13/poll.republicans/index.html) This looks bad for the GOP:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Survey out Friday indicates that 2008 may not be a good year for Republicans up and down the ticket, even though most national surveys indicate the race for the White House between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama is quite close right now.

Sixty-three percent of Democrats questioned say they are either extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this year. Only 37 percent of Republicans feel the same way, and 36 percent of Republicans say they are not enthusiastic about voting.

The Democrats are united for creeping socialism. The GOP is fractured, with John McCain offering a wink to each of the party's faces: the populists (anti-immigrant, pro-censorship), the religious right (anti-abortion), and the socialists light (carbon caps). The result is that hardly anybody likes McCain, and many Republicans detest him. Forgotten is the free-market faction.

The only Republicans who whisper about cutting spending are usually the same ones beholden to the James Dobson crowd and who for that reason alienate independent voters and non-sectarian Republicans.

Where is the Republican who calls for individual rights, lower spending, serious entitlement reform, free trade, free speech, and sound money?

Comment by Severin: "Where is the Republican who calls for individual rights, lower spending, serious entitlement reform, free trade, free speech, and sound money?" They are at the Ron Paul rallies. They are really fairly pervasive, it is just that they are a minority within the republican party.

Comment by Paul Hsieh: Given that the GOP does *not* stand for individual rights, then the failure is a good thing, no? If they get trounced, then re-examine themselves, they have a chance of returning to better principles, as in the days of Barry Goldwater. On the other hand if they win, then it merely entrenches the worst aspect of the GOP, accelerating the trend of the last 8 years.

Democrats Find Religion

June 15, 2008

The religious left is expanding, as I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/religious-left.html) noted. Now a poll (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9582751) indicates Democrats have captured some religious voters:

The Henry Institute National Survey on Religion and Public Life found that Democrats made gains among mainline Protestants, those like Presbyterians who are affiliated with the National Council of Churches. Among those Christians, Republican identification shrank from 44 percent in 2004 to 37 this spring, while Democratic identification rose from 38 percent to 46 percent. The Henry Institute, at Calvin College in Michigan, studies the intersection of Christianity and public life.

Though both the Republicans and the Democrats lost 2 percentage points among evangelical Protestants in the survey, the Democrats were able to gain slightly among traditional and centrist evangelicals. ...

[Leah] Daughtry [the Democratic National Convention Committee's chief executive and a Pentecostal preacher] says the evangelical movement is changing.

"You see their list of concerns growing to include issues like Darfur, issues like the environment," Daughtry said. "I think as those issues become part of their conversation, then I think it's a natural fit for them to look to the Democratic Party... I think we have more in common with them, particularly on social issues, than the Republican Party does."

"Social issues" means expanded political control of the economy, more global and domestic welfare, and higher taxes.

The original survey (http://www.calvin.edu/henry/civic/CivicRespGrant/SurveyFindings.htm) may be downloaded.

The cited story from The Denver Post doesn't clarify what's going on with evangelicals. The survey breaks down "evangelical protestants" into "traditionalist," "centrist," and "modernist." What happened is that traditionalist and centrist evangelicals dramatically reduced their support for the GOP, while a few joined the Democrats. In a comparison between 2004 and 2008, evangelical support for the two parties dropped by two percent each. In 2004, 56 percent of evangelicals identified with the Republican Party and 27 percent with the Democrats. In 2008, 54 percent identified with the Republicans and 25 percent with the Democrats. I'm not sure how the numbers for evangelicals square with slight gains among traditionalist and centrist for the Democrats.

Mainline Protestants have made a big jump. Their support for Republicans has dropped from 44 to 37 percent, while support for Democrats has grown from 38 to 46 percent.

The upshot seems to be that some traditionalist evangelicals (about five percent) have dropped out of partisan politics, having become disillusioned with GOP. Meanwhile, the Democrats have made gains among many religious voters by appealing to the social-welfare view of Christianity.

Here's another interesting tidbit: the percent of evangelicals who disagree with the doctrine of free trade has grown from 51 percent to 60 percent. However, the question seems to have been grossly biased; "Free trade is good for the economy even if it means the loss of some U.S. jobs." Even if we discount the results because of the tainted question, evangelicals by no means show strong support for a free market.

Here's another interesting result that helps explain the move of Mainline Protestants to the Democrats. While only 35 percent of evangelicals believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide," 60 percent of Mainline Protestants think so. (Surprisingly, 51 percent of Catholics think so.)

Interestingly, though, evangelicals are still strongly for McCain, 59 to 24 percent. McCain has a 3-4 point lead among Mainline Protestants and Catholics. This is from the Spring, though; it will be interesting to see if Obama's religious rhetoric and background can attract more religious voters.

Lott on Abortion

June 16, 2008

John Lott explains the social impacts of abortion in a recent (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365322,00.html) article for Fox. He argues that liberalized abortion laws resulted in the following:

A sharp increase in pre-marital sex.
A sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births.
A drop in the number of children placed for adoption.
A decline in marriages that occur after the woman is pregnant.

Lott argues, "With abortion seen as a backup, women as well as men became less careful in using contraceptives as well as more likely to have premarital sex." However, because not all of these women had an abortion, they had babies out of wedlock. Because men see abortion as a legitimate option, they are less likely to assume a fatherhood role if their partners choose to have the baby.

Lott argues that changed abortion laws were "a key contributing factor" to these trends. I find his case persuasive. However, my sense is that other factors are more important. For example, the era was also marked by Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society," which in essence paid women to have children out of wedlock. And did liberalized abortion lead to more extra-marital sex, or vice versa? It was also an era of women's liberation and loosened sexual mores.

The broader point is that it's wrong to violate individual rights even if some people behave irresponsibly. For example, we wouldn't argue that women shouldn't have equal rights as men to own property and such, even if such rights contribute to irresponsible extra-marital sex.

People who have extra-marital sex should choose their partners carefully and take the proper steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy. This is not difficult. Properly used birth control is highly effective. Couples who have sex should know in advance how they're going to handle unexpected pregnancy. Couples should also bear the responsibility for children they bring into the world, rather than qualify for forced wealth transfers.

An embryo is not a person. A woman has a right to get an abortion. Any negative social consequences should be addressed in other ways, not by violating people's rights. As Diana Hsieh (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2008/06/08/personhood-amendment-3-letters/) writes, banning abortions "would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg—even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams. It would make actual persons—any woman capable of bearing children, plus her husband or boyfriend—slaves to merely potential persons."

Brook Explains Freedom's Retreat

June 16, 2008

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute has written another (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/06/14/nationalism-global-capitalism-oped-cx_yb_0616brook.html) outstanding article for Forbes outlining the retreats from capitalism in South America, Europe, and the United States—and explaining the causes of them.

It feels like the early stages of Atlas Shrugged. But we can turn the tide for the same reason that liberty has been slipping; as Brook writes: "There's no preordained direction for the world economy—only an undetermined future that will take the shape of whatever ideas and policies we choose to uphold."

Brook points out, "Capitalism and the profit motive continue to be viewed with suspicion. ... This is why Barack Obama can get away with belittling the 'money culture,' his wife can smugly counsel youth to shun 'corporate America' and John McCain can brag about working 'out of patriotism, not for profit'."

Read the (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/06/14/nationalism-global-capitalism-oped-cx_yb_0616brook.html) entire article.

Regressives Harm Minority Youth

June 16, 2008

Recently the Colorado Progressive Coalition (http://www.progressivecoalition.org/CPC_News.htm) bragged about helping to pass the 2006 (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/minwageii.html) wage controls.

Congratulations: you've put some inexperienced minors out of a job, ensuring that they'll lack the job experience needed for higher pay later.

Kristen Lopez Eastlick (http://www.examiner.com/a-1431559~Kristen_Lopez_Eastlick__Dude__where_s_my_summer_job_.html) writes for Examiner.com:

This year, it's harder than ever for teens to find a summer job. Researchers at Northeastern University described summer 2007 as "the worst in post-World War II history" for teen summer employment, and those same researchers say that 2008 is poised to be "even worse."

According to their data, only about one-third of Americans 16 to 19 years old will have a job this summer, and vulnerable low-income and minority teens are going to fare even worse.

The percentage of teens classified as "unemployed"—those who are actively seeking a job but can't get one—is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics.

One of the prime reasons for this drastic employment drought is the mandated wage hikes that policymakers have forced down the throats of local businesses. Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing little to address poverty.

Yet, not only does the group call itself "progressive," but it brags about promoting a policy that hurts poor minority youth.

The only real progressives in the state are the ones advocating liberty, free markets, and individual rights.

Censorship of Religious Criticism

June 17, 2008

Recent cases in France and Canada illustrate the growing movement to censor speech critical of religion. This trend must be fought, or liberty is lost.

The Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=18731&news_iv_ctrl=1221) reviews the French case:

"The conviction of Brigitte Bardot by a French court for 'inciting hatred against Muslims' is a gross violation of her right to free speech and should be denounced by every civilized nation," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Bardot was fined $23,325 on Tuesday—barely escaping a jail sentence—for a statement made in a letter to France's interior minister, protesting Muslims' refusal to stun animals before slaughtering them during religious holidays. The fine was levied for the following statement: "I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, (and) destroying our country by imposing their ways."

"Bardot's statement was an expression of political opinion and obviously did not constitute coercion, or threat of coercion, against anyone," said Bowden. "As such, the French government has no right to fine or penalize her in any way for the exercise of her individual right of free speech.

"Moreover, there is no rational basis for a crime of 'inciting hatred.' Hatred is the emotion one feels in response to evil. Thus, to criminalize the incitement of hatred is to criminalize the expression of moral judgment, inasmuch as any moral denunciation may cause others to hate the alleged evildoer." ...

David Harsanyi of The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9605039) discusses the case in Canada:

Steyn is a U.S.-based journalist, columnist and best-selling author of "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It," a book that deals with demographics and Muslim influence in the Western world. Not only is Steyn's work widely read, his opinions—whether you find them agreeable or not—are also worthy of debate.

Yet when Maclean's, the largest-circulation magazine in Canada, published a Steyn essay based on "America Alone," it sparked a volley of suits and a vile legal ordeal.

First, the Ontario Human Rights Commission held a tribunal and deemed Steyn's essay "Islamophobic." Now, the British Columbia human rights commission in Vancouver has held a week-long trial on the matter. A federal commission is waiting on investigators to decide whether to proceed against Steyn.

Within the context of individual rights, the freedom of speech must be held as absolute. Freedom of speech does not protect violations of rights such as fraud and incitements to violence, but certainly it must protect criticisms of any ideology, including Islam, regardless of what the targets of the criticisms think or do about it. (Any civilized person responds to argument with argument.)

Free speech is a pillar of a free society. Censorship is an early mark of tyranny.

Peikoff 17

June 17, 2008

I'm already a podcast behind, but here I briefly review Leonard Peikoff's (http://peikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-06-02.017.mp3) seventeenth podcast, which deals mostly with matters of politics.

1. What is treason? Peikoff distinguishes between "giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime" from criticizing a war.

2. Is torture of wartime enemies ever appropriate? Peikoff answers that it's "moral when it's necessary to advance the war for freedom." The problem is that torture rarely yields useful information, he adds. It might be useful if, for example, the military has captured someone who knows about a bomb soon to detonate. It is a matter of tactics, but "not a primary or major issue of a war." I am curious whether those who absolutely oppose the use of all torture would hold their ground if U.S. forces captured a terrorist who had planted a nuclear bomb in a major U.S. city.

3. Can Objectivists be soldiers, police officers, or others devoted to "public service?" Peikoff answers that this is no different for doctors or other professionals. A soldier properly fights to preserve liberty for himself, his family, and his country, and to offer an engaging career. (I skipped another minor question before this one.)

4. Did Ayn Rand regret her "provocative tone?" Peikoff's answer here is too good for me to summarize; listen to the podcast.

5. Is reproduction a source of values from a biological perspective? "Of value to whom?" Peikoff asks. The notion of a sort of transcendent biological "value" is an instance of intrinsicism.

6. If you're engaged with someone (for athletics, sex, etc.), do you have a legal as well as a moral responsibility to help the person if they have an emergency health problem? Peikoff answers yes, because you've entered an implicit contract with them. I think he's right here, but the problem is that it would be rarely possible to legally enforce. But if you're having sex with somebody who wouldn't help you with a health emergency, you have bigger problems than your health.

It's a particularly fun (http://peikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-06-02.017.mp3) podcast.

Colorado Right to Death

June 18, 2008

The ludicrously named Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) openly admits that its policies would endanger the lives of women. It demands that Republican candidates work to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape. And it declares its commitment to faith-based politics, noting that Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, would allegedly "uphold God's enduring command."

Today I also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/republicans-botch-abortion.html) discussed the politics of the situation; here I address the ideology, as (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/news/2008/04/crtl-2008-candidate-questionnaire) detailed in the "CRTL 2008 Candidate Questionnaire."

Following are several of the group's questions:

Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn?

Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? [See life-of-the mother note below.]

Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization?

Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)?

The group declares that, in the name of God, it desires to force women to have the babies of rapists, grant equal rights to fertilized eggs, and prohibit potentially life-saving medical research.

What about the mother's life?

When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. When the life of the mother is at serious risk by her pregnancy, the goal must be to save the life of the mother and the baby if at all possible. It is just as wrong to kill the mother to save the baby, as it is to kill the baby to save the mother. "Legalizing" abortion, defined as the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother leads to repugnant acts like emergency removal of late-term babies from the womb stopping midway in the procedure to kill the baby. If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder. If necessary to save the mom's life, the unborn baby could be delivered with the determination to care for both, and if possible, to save both the baby and mother!

Obviously, the best scenario is to save the mother and baby. However, when there is a conflict, CRTL is perfectly willing to sacrifice the mother, an actual human being, to an embryo, only a potential. Here is the key line: " It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

Colorado Right to Life in fact endorses policies that would kill actual human beings. The group's alleged "right to life" means for some an obligation to die.

The organization makes clear that it does not merely wish to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the decision to the states, as so many Republicans declare:

Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children. Sadly, not even one of the seven current U.S. Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican presidents support the right to life of the unborn.

Further, our pro-life presidents have nominated sixty percent of the U.S. federal judiciary, and yet the judiciary utterly rejects the right to life of the unborn. Also we should remember that the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision was written by a Republican Justice and passed by the Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, and abortion was legalized in Colorado by Republican governor John Love in 1967.

Most Americans don't buy into CRTL's absurd, pro-death, faith-based agenda. The problem is that Americans are used to viewing everything through pragmatist eyes, so many can't understand that CRTL means it. They actually want to ban birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from growing. They actually want to force 13-year-old girls to bear the children of rapists. They actually want doctors to let women die if necessary to save the fetus. They are deadly serious. It is time for sensible Coloradans to take them at their word and reject their dogmatic agenda resoundingly.

Comment by Bob Kyffin:

Ari, you're mis-reading CRTL's position. They say you don't kill a baby to save the mother because it's a truism. It's never medically necessary to take active measures to kill the baby in order to preserve the mother's life. That's an abortionist's lie, and a popularly believed myth.

A Caesarian section is one of the safest and quickest medical procedures that exists. It takes 5 minutes, and if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live.

A late-term abortion, on the other hand, takes many hours, at the very least, and often takes days. If a woman's life is in danger, a doctor would be criminally incompetent to take the time to kill the baby before removing her, rather than simply delivering the baby alive.

A doctor should always try to save the life of the baby and the mother—to do anything else is negligent.

On the subject of rape babies, surveys show that most victims of rape or incest want to keep their babies. The ones who don't keep their baby often regret it for the rest of their lives. An abortion simply re-victimizes the young girl.

Abortion for rape and incest also hides the crime from authorities (abortionists NEVER report underage pregnancies, even when they suspect rape—this is WELL documented). The rapist is free to rape the same girl again, and again, without his wife (the girl's mother) or whoever else knowing about it.

Is there ever a case where slavery should be allowed? Ever a case when a Jew should be allowed to be killed? Never.

And there should never be a reason to take the life of an innocent human being, even if she happened to be the result of rape or incest.

That's because People have rights, including the Right to Life.

Comment by Amy:

My best friend in high school had an abortion, and she never regretted it. And I know other women with the same experience.

There are several dishonest tactics that the poster above and CRTL use to elicit irrational emotion:

1. Refer to the fetus as a "she," and refer to the woman and the fetus as "mother and baby."

2. Never describe the fetus as a snake-like clump (which, in early terms, it looks like); always describe abortion as killing a pretty, pink, plump, cute baby. (In fact, only 2% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks—see links below).

3. Always project the capacity of adult feelings and thoughts onto fetuses to stir others' emotions (very much like animal-rights activists' projection of the capacity of human feelings onto animals).

4. Always emphasize the idea that "most" women regret having abortions without giving any substantiation. (I saw a bumper sticker yesterday claiming that 93% [!] of women regret having an abortion.)

5. Use over-generalizations; never identify context. "Never medically necessary."

6. Always evade explaining what it means to save both the "mother and baby's" life. Never talk in terms of killing the woman for the sake of the fetus. Try to slide by on emotional arguments.

7. Assert that religious people have the moral authority to impose the "right" actions onto women, even if it means forcing them.

8. Never speak of individual rights—only rights in collective terms (all babies, or lives) and the status quo (most women).

9. Always project evil intentions on women; never refer to women as having a rational faculty or having good reasons for getting an abortion. Never talk about the circumstances of the woman's life at the time of the abortion.

So here is a modest list of reasons for getting an abortion:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

And some women's stories:
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/stories/index.html

I am not a doctor, but considering the spurious and emotional nature of Bob's information, his medical claims are suspect.

Thanks for your post and bringing these awful people and ideas out into the light, Ari!

Comment by Bob Kyffin: Amy, Does it upset you that you are "forced" not to own a slave? There are certain moral imperatives in society where society "forces" people to abide by a certain code—not to murder, not to enslave people, not to kill their unborn child. These are necessary "measures of force" meant specifically to PROTECT individual rights, not to take them away. You speak of a woman's "right to choose what to do with her own body." I'm telling you that science (God too, but definitely science) tells us that that IS an individual baby in your womb, and that baby should have individual rights to life. It's the pro-abortion people who are imposing their will on the individual baby and destroying the rights of the individual. In reality, it's not about the woman's body. It's about the baby's body. I'll explain more in an extensive response to Ari. But there is no medical question that an embryo/zygote /"fertilized egg" is an individual, distinct from the mother. Science proves it, and you won't be able to find a single credible science book that says life doesn't begin at conception.

Comment by Mike Zemack:

A crucial principle concerning individual rights is missed by the "pro-life" side of the debate. Rights, properly understood, are inalienable. This means that they are possessed equally, by all people, at all times. In other words, the rights of one person do not and cannot override or negate the rights of another. Therefore, in the early stages of a pregnancy, there are no rights that ascribe to the fetus, if one takes the natural, inalienable rights of the individual as truth.

I take this stand as a father of two, grandfather of six, and as a person who takes the abortion issue very seriously. I recently had an online debate on abortion in response to (http://principledperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/06/popes-reaffirmation.html) a post on my blog with my beloved daughter Christine, a wife, mother of four, and a Christian. Here, in part, is what I said:

"Abortion is a very difficult subject, morally . . . at least for me. But the crucial point to understand here is that a right is a concept that applies to, and only to, actual living human beings, not potential human beings. This is not a callous statement, but a recognition of the facts of reality. A right is an attribute that is possessed by every human equally, and that places no unchosen positive obligation on another. Further, a right is something that a person possesses throughout his life. The idea that a person has a right (the rights of the unborn) that is automatically lost at birth is a contradiction, both of logic and of the facts of reality. Again, abortion is a very morally difficult issue, especially with regard to the latter stages of a pregnancy, and is a procedure that I abhor if approached under any but the most thoughtful circumstances. But the principle of inalienable individual rights is absolute. The rights of the mother reign supreme, and one who denies those rights cannot claim to be a defender of the "rights of the unborn." The concept of "the rights of the unborn" implies an impossible conflict…that the rights of some supercede and negate the rights of others . . . an idea that in fact negates the very concept of inalienable rights."

I agree with Bob Kyffin that the issue of late-term abortion is mostly a red herring, for the reasons he describes. I say mostly, because even here, there is reason for keeping abortion legal in some circumstances. I have two real life, very personal experiences to demonstrate my point. Christine was pregnant with my second grandchild when, at 25 weeks, serious complications set in that required the immediate termination of the pregnancy, as both the lives of mother and especially baby were endangered. An emergency c-section was performed, both were saved, and my Madalyn is now a thriving five year old with two younger siblings (in addition to a big brother). This seems to validate his contention that killing the (late-term) unborn child is never necessary. BUT, some years ago, my sister-in-law Janet was faced with a terrible choice. Pregnant with her third child, her doctors discovered, well into the third trimester, that the child suffered from a very serious defect that would have resulted in massive pain for the child, major and continuous medical intervention, and death by age three. Janet chose to abort, a crushing decision for her, but the only rational and compassionate one, as it saved the newborn baby a short but agonizing life of suffering, and her, her husband, and her two daughters three years of devastating emotional and financial pain. As Ari says, under normal conditions, the proper course in regard to late term pregnancies is to save both mother and baby. But I can't fathom anyone imposing on Janet and her family the kind of burden they would have had to endure, all in the name of the "rights of the unborn" or the "will of God."

To return to my original point, the principle of inalienable individual rights negates the argument that "In reality, it's not about the woman's body. It's about the baby's body." A contradiction of this magnitude cannot stand. The argument for individual rights, especially of the right to life, is absolutely lethal to the entire "pro-life" position. I challenge Bob Kyffin, or anyone, to reconcile "the rights of the unborn" with the principle of inalienable individual rights. It can't be done. Either one believes in individual rights, or one doesn't.

Republicans Botch Abortion

June 18, 2008

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/05/personhood-amendment-favors-dems.html) pointed out, Colorado's Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person, has placed the Republicans in a quandary. After years of paying lip-service to the religious right, they are now pressured to support 48. The problem for Republicans is that most Coloradans realize that Amendment 48 is insane. A fertilized egg is not a person, yet the initiative seeks to impose the definition through enforced religious dogma.

So now the GOP has become a headless chicken, squawking in and out of the anti-abortion camp.

As Lynn Bartels (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/17/anti-abortion-group-rips-state-gop-chairman/) reports for The Rocky Mountain News, when Republican party chair Dick Wadhams refused to rent a table to Colorado Right to Life at the party's state convention, the group blasted the GOP.

Why did Wadhams deny the table? He told Bartels, "Any organization that publicly attacks the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate is not going to be allowed to buy table space."

What are these attacks? The organization refers on its (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/republican-candidate-bob-schaffer-twilight-zone) web page to "Colorado RTL's accusation of his disregard for Chinese women forced to abort their children." Regarding the group's 2008 Candidate Questionnaire, which includes a question about the "personhood" initiative, its web page (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/news/2008/05/2008-candidate-quesitonnaire-answers) states, "Notable for NOT answering the Colorado RTL Candidate Questionnaire is U.S. Republican candidate Bob Schaffer." Tim Hoover of The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9615866) adds, "Earlier this year, Colorado Right to Life attacked Schaffer over his defense of human rights conditions in the Northern Marianas Islands, where there have been repeated accusations that textile workers must undergo forced abortions."

Wadhams, also Schaffer's campaign manager, has been reduced to mocking Colorado Right to Life and weakly touting his anti-abortion credentials. He told the Post, "The Colorado Republican Party has good relations with legitimate pro-life organization."

Colorado Right to Life is threatening to walk this November if candidates don't behave. Bartels writes, "Colorado Right to Life President Joe Riccobono warned Republicans that by shunning their conservative base, they're headed for 'another election catastrophe in November'." Hoover adds, "'The state's top Republican is out of touch with his own party's base,' Leslie Hanks , the group's vice president, said in a statement." (I couldn't find that statement on the group's web page.)

Yet if Republicans pander to Colorado Right to Life, they'll lose the more numerous independent voters.

Notably, various Republicans have already (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/news/2008/05/2008-candidate-quesitonnaire-answers) signed on to Colorado Right to Life's agenda. I don't notice a lot of Republican names from competitive districts.

Gone are the days when Republicans can mouth anti-abortion rhetoric and expect not to actually have to face the issue. Colorado Right to Life means it, and they're prepared to push their faith-based politics all the way.

See today's post at AriArmtrong.com for more about Colorado Right to Life's Agenda.

Comment: GOD will be the judge of all of us one way or another, NOT these terrible bullies! Jesus was peaceful and would have never done any of this and would not have approved in any way. These "sidewalk counselors" are doing the devil's work and are the new Westboro Baptist Church of our community and their arrogant ignorance is so sad and pathetic that it sickens me.
These are the worst of the worst of anti-abortion (and anti-gay, anti-religious freedom) extremists. Anyone that associates with these people will be judged the same way by the public and by God (as mentally ill, sadistic and psychopathic!) There is a special place in Hell for all of these people, but it's just as well, since these "sidewalk counselors" hate Jesus and are doing the devil's work. I am a member of a very large and REAL Christian Church south of Denver and our Pastor gave a wonderful sermon on Sunday about how these "sidewalk counselor" bullies blaspheme the name of the Lord. Our Pastor encouraged us to contact Voice of Choice (http://www.vochoice.org) to help attempt to get the protesters to see that this should not be about anyone's stance on abortion, but to NOT BULLY and NOT HARASS your fellow human beings. Hundreds of the Denver parishioners and their family members have contacted Voice of Choice and offered their services to do what they could do to help. I hope you will do the same. Please pray for the protesters!

Reply to Kyffin on Abortion

June 19, 2008

Yesterday I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/colorado-right-to-death.html) strongly criticized Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) for promoting the prohibition of abortion even of fertilized eggs and even in cases of rape and risk to the life of the mother.

Bob Kyffin offered several arguments in reply. However, he did not address the central point: a fertilized egg is not a person, as CRTL claims. Kyffin states:

Is there ever a case where slavery should be allowed? Ever a case when a Jew should be allowed to be killed? Never.

And there should never be a reason to take the life of an innocent human being...

Nobody doubts the evils of slavery or murder. But a fertilized egg is just not a human being (a person). It is alive, and it has human DNA, but so does every cell in our bodies. It is a potential human being, but a potential person is not a person.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in early stages of pregnancy, when the embryo is barely developed and still only a potential human person. As a matter of ethics, women who get abortions should do so in the early stages whenever feasible. (As a matter of ethics, people should have sex responsibly and take reasonable steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy.) Individual rights apply only to actual people, individuals who live a "biologically independent existence" (in Diana Hsieh's (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/06/rights-and-abortion.shtml) words.)

As a matter of rights, women have the right to get an abortion for whatever reason they deem fit. This is true even if some women get abortions for bad reasons or come to regret them. Similarly, women have the right to decide their sexual partners, even if some have sex for bad reasons or come to regret it.

A fertilized egg is not a person. An embryo is not a person. Neither Kyffin nor CRTL has offered any reason for thinking otherwise, beyond the pseudo-reason that God allegedly said so.

In his more specific arguments, Kyffin begins by addressing risks to the life of the mother:

They [CRTL] say you don't kill a baby to save the mother because it's a truism. It's never medically necessary to take active measures to kill the baby in order to preserve the mother's life. That's an abortionist's lie, and a popularly believed myth.

A Caesarian section is one of the safest and quickest medical procedures that exists. It takes 5 minutes, and if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live.

A late-term abortion, on the other hand, takes many hours, at the very least, and often takes days. If a woman's life is in danger, a doctor would be criminally incompetent to take the time to kill the baby before removing her, rather than simply delivering the baby alive.

A doctor should always try to save the life of the baby and the mother—to do anything else is negligent.

Kyffin claims that in medical emergencies the interests of the mother and fetus usually coincide. This I do not doubt. However, it is not always the case, and unexpected emergencies late in pregnancy are not the only relevant cases. Doctors may know very early in the pregnancy that the mother would risk her life by carrying the embryo to term. Last November, I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/false-definition-of-personhood.html) cited the case of a woman who died following an ectopic pregnancy. A woman might have any number of medical conditions that make pregnancy dangerous.

Kyffin fudges his case when he forbids only "active measures to kill the baby," adding that "if the baby is capable of living outside the womb, then she will live." That's a fairly big "if." Obviously, if a doctor removes an (early-stage) embryo, it's going to die. Kyffin's trick is to define "active measures" so narrowly that some cases of intentionally killing the embryo are discounted.

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it.

In practice, though, medicine is often an art of managing risks. In many cases, a pregnancy will endanger the life of the mother somewhat. Only a certain fraction of dangerous pregnancies will result in the death of the mother. To flesh out its position, then, CRTL needs to specify when it's acceptable to risk the life of the mother. If the mother has a 40 percent chance of dying and a 60 percent chance of carrying the embryo to term, must the government force the woman and her doctor to continue the pregnancy?

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." And the first path is horrific.

Next Kyffin addresses the issue of rape:

On the subject of rape babies, surveys show that most victims of rape or incest want to keep their babies. The ones who don't keep their baby often regret it for the rest of their lives. An abortion simply re-victimizes the young girl.

Abortion for rape and incest also hides the crime from authorities (abortionists NEVER report underage pregnancies, even when they suspect rape—this is WELL documented). The rapist is free to rape the same girl again, and again, without his wife (the girl's mother) or whoever else knowing about it.

The issue of documentation and protection of underage victims is distinct from the issue of abortion (though I doubt Kyffin's claim that abortion clinics "never" report rapes to the police). Obviously the issue is wider than underage pregnancy (though I don't know what percentage of pregnancies caused by rape involve minors).

Regardless of what the surveys say, the matter is not properly up for vote. Even if "most" women want to carry embryos resulting from rape to term, some do not, and they have the right to get an abortion. I do not doubt that many women regret getting an abortion, just as many do not, and many would have regretted not getting an abortion. But that's beside the point. It's the government's job to protect people's rights—in this case, the rights of women—not play psychoanalyst and protect people from their own choices as evaluated by the religious right. (The broader point is that the government should fight rape.) Besides, according to CRTL's premises, even if all raped women who became pregnant wanted to get an abortion and none regretted it, CRTL would still wish to prohibit all abortions, so Kyffin's argument seems misplaced.

Nothing Kyffin has written mitigates the fact that CRTL wants to grant a fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person, force women to bring pregnancies to term against their will, prohibit valuable medical research, force women to have the babies of rapists, and sacrifice the lives of some unwilling women in order to save embryos. Those who actually respect life must reject CRTL's faith-based politics.

Comment by Dr. Paul Hsieh: In emergency situations, for instance when a pregnant woman is in a bad car accident, usually the mother's interest and the fetus' interest coincide. Hence, the best way to save the fetus is usually to save the mother. But in a few (fortunately rare) circumstances, it may be that measures to save the mother's life may increase the risk of a bad outcome for the fetus. For instance, the mother may have massive pelvic bleeding from injured arteries which would require an interventional radiology procedure called pelvic embolization. But to perform that procedure would expose the fetus to high doses of x-ray radiation and/or intravenous x-ray contrast ("dye") because it's injected in the mother's blood stream and will then pass through the placenta into the fetal blood stream. But the fetus might still be too early in development for a C-section, or it might be right at the borderline for a safe C-section because the baby would be extremely premature. In that case, doctors will do what they have to do save the mother, and deal with any bad consequences to the fetus later. The basic principle that the trauma surgeons adopt is, "Treat the mother first." They won't generally hold back on anything that will help the mother, even if it could cause harm to the fetus. Of course, the mother can always choose not to consent to a procedure (knowing that it might be bad for her, but might be better for the future child). It's not so much that one has to kill the fetus to save the mother, but one might have to place the fetus at increased risk to save the mother (or increase her chances of survival). So in the rare cases where the mother's interests and the fetus's interest conflict, the mother's take priority. Fortunately, this doesn't arise very often.

Comment by Bob Kyffin:

Ari,

First off, let me assure you that I am intimately familiar with CRTL's position on "never kill the baby to save the mother" and yet there is nothing at all inconsistent between CRTL's position and Dr. Hsieh's position, which you quoted.

The reason is that you are wrong when you contend there is no difference between delivery of an embryo to death on the one hand, and intentionally killing her on the other hand.

That's why CRTL says, "if the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder." The result may be the same. The intent is clearly different. There is a distinct and critical difference between the unfortunate death of a baby whose life could not be saved, in the course of protecting the mother, and the situation where a doctor goes in and intentionally kills the baby when it is not necessary. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is a (presumably) 0% chance of the baby surviving, and that is unfortunate. And yet, CRTL would support a surgery to protect the mother, so long as there is no malicious intent in the doctor's mind to intentionally kill the baby.

Consider the case of Siamese twins. The doctors, in every case, have the intent to save both twins, though in some cases this is impossible. In other cases, death comes to one or both despite the attempt to intervene. Nevertheless, if there is a medical necessity to intervene to prevent both twins from dying (or both mother and baby), then it is supportive of the right to life (and not in conflict with CRTL's position) to do so. Since the baby needs the mother to survive, then of course CRTL would support taking such actions to preserve her life, even if it may mean the death of the baby, or (as Dr. Hsieh mentions) an increased risk to the baby.

That said, did you know that a British woman (I think) actually brought an ectopic pregnancy to full term the other day? It was linked in Drudge. Also, there are other ways to "medically manage" a "dangerous" pregnancy, including toxemia. Brian Rohrbough's wife was in that situation, and she (like any mother would have 50 years ago) chose to carry the baby to term even though it put her at increased risk of injury or death. Once upon a time, mothers were willing to die for their unborn children. That ethic has been lost in our selfish modern society. In any case, danger to the mother's life is a very rare situation, and even when it exists it can be medically managed with B12 supplements and other means that are perfectly reasonable and available (and even cheap!).

Now, none of this is relevant if the embryo (what you referred to as "unformed") is not a Person. But not just God, but science too, indicates life begins at conception, and support of individual rights should indicate to good libertarians that that human life is not property, but rather a unique and distinct individual, deserving of individual rights.

Nothing is ever a potential human being. Eggs and sperm are clearly not human beings. They're not potential, because they could never turn into a human being by themselves.

However, a "fertilized egg" (what science refers to as a zygote or an embryo-only politicians refer to them as "fertilized eggs") is actually a developing human being. When 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 chromosomes from the father join in the zygote they instantly constitute a unique human being, with its own DNA that is not even 50% of either parent-it is a unique mixture of the parents' combined genomes which can include traits neither of their parents even had. Once the instant of conception (fertilization) occurs, if you could map that child's DNA, you could predict exactly what hair color, eye color, exact appearance, genetic aptitudes, and probably even personality influences, all from the information you've gathered from a 1-second-old baby.

This is the refutation of your comparison between the "fertilized egg" and every other cell in your body—the difference is that this one cell (and, after a matter of hours, several cells) has its own, distinct and unique DNA sequence that is completely different from the mother. It even communicates with its mother at the instant of birth using pheramones—a human chemical only used to communicate between individuals.

Ari, you also betray an internal conflict in saying that, "As a matter of ethics, women who get abortions should do so in the early stages whenever feasible." You go on to say, "As a matter of ethics, people should have sex responsibly and take reasonable steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy." Your adherence to these ethics demonstrates that you acknowledge a moral component to pregnancy, and I appreciate that. However, by advising in favor of the baby's Right to Life (not a right, really—what you describe is more like a government-regulated or personally-regulated privilege) later in the term, you are admitting there is a moral component here. It's not just about the mother. It's about the baby too. Otherwise, there should be nothing wrong with abortion up to the 9th month. Your heart compels you to know there is a moral imperative here. You're right!

But the Right to Life IS a right—not a privilege, to be determined by the government, as freedom once was.

The leaders of the "right to death" movement are those who support abortion at any stage of life, from RU-486 to euthanasia. Ari, from what you've said, I know that you're not one of those people. But Ari, I'm sorry to say, you are taking the same side as those liberals who oppose other individual rights at any stage of our lives—gun rights, freedom from search & seizure, limits on religious freedom, and freedom of speech, etc. Look at anyone who support those anti-libertarian positions, and you can be all but guaranteed they're also in favor of "the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body." Why? Because it's an imagined right—a "right" designed to mask the violation of the rights of the individual.

When it comes down to it, the defenses of abortion are never "choices"—"this woman has to have an abortion because she's poor," or "this woman has to have an abortion because she's been raped," or "this woman has to have an abortion because she's not ready to be a mom."

Do you know how many women—even how many kids—are not ready to be a mom? And yet, they take on the responsibility once they're put in the situation. Anyone who becomes pregnant is already a mom. It's a matter of whether she then chooses to keep the baby, or throw her in a dumpster. Legalized abortion "absolves" them of the responsibility, but is that really a proper libertarian position—the "right" to irresponsibility? I think not!

So, the question is, when does an individual Person acquire the Right to Life if not at fertilization, when that unique Person becomes who he or she is? When must the individual right of the mother have to give way to the individual right of the baby? And if they are equal, at any time, then what gives the mother the right to determine rights of life and freedom for the baby whose life she has power over? Is that not perverse—like the rights of a slaveowner over his slave? Does the baby seriously have no rights, whatsoever, until birth? How is that not like slavery?

Did you know that abortionists are shunned in medical practice by their supposed "peers?" That's because most doctors take the Hippocratic Oath relatively seriously, and they recognize that abortionists do not. Did you know that the original Hippocratic Oath actually included a vow not to "give an abortive remedy?" And that was in a pagan Greek culture! Even then, they realized a conflict between "do no harm" and killing an unborn baby.

Teen Girls Find Pregnancy "Sweet"

June 19, 2008

I was a little surprised to read a (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9634861) story in The Denver Post (from Tania Deluzuriaga of The Boston Globe) about 17 pregnant teen girls at Gloucester High in Massachusetts. Many of the pregnancies were intentional. To figure out what's going on, I poked around a bit more. It turns out that people have lots of theories, but I've not found anyone who stated the most obvious theory. So I'll do the job after reviewing the others.

Theory 1: Pathway to Adulthood

...Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy, [said a]dults in the city need to do a better job of showing teen girls a pathway to adulthood that includes something other than parenting... "People in Gloucester need to look at using what feels like a crisis as an opportunity to improve services and support."

I guess it never occurred to me that teen girls would think that getting pregnant is a "pathway to adulthood." Isn't it obvious that going to college or getting a job is a pretty good pathway? Or how about waiting till you're out of high school and then getting married before getting pregnant?

I wonder what sort of "services and support" Quinn has in mind. Do we need tax-funded seminars about how getting knocked up isn't too smart if you're a young teen? Quinn's musings are less than helpful.

Theory 2: Reaction to Technology

Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369103,00.html) adds:

Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and FOX News contributor, called the school's epidemic "shocking." ...

"In a world that is so technologically based, there will be predictable push-back from young people," he said. "They want to remind themselves that they are alive and human. One of the ways people do this is that they reproduce."

I think the clinical name for Ablow's theory is "Gigantic Load of Hokum."

Right now I'm typing on my powerful computer plugged into the global internet, listening to digitized music, enjoying electric lighting, and drinking a smoothie courtesy of thousands of businesses around the world. And, somehow, I still feel human.

Ablow's theory seems not to mesh well with the fact that birth rates generally decline in the most technologically advanced countries.

Nor is it clear why getting pregnant might help somebody feel more human than, say, having sex with birth control, studying the classics, preparing for college, or playing Monopoly with the family.

Theory 3: Hit Movies

Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html) notes that some "blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers."

That doesn't really make much sense, because in Juno the girl gives up her baby for adoption, and in Knocked UP the "young unwed mother" is a single, adult professional.

Notably, Time reports, "'We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,' the principal says, shaking his head." I don't know what movie that came from.

Theory 4: Too Little Birth Control

Time adds, "Even with national data showing a 3% rise in teen pregnancies in 2006—the first increase in 15 years --Gloucester isn't sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control."

But these girls wanted to get pregnant. It's not like they were just having sex with 24-year old homeless guys for the joy of sex; they wanted the baby.

In general, it's not like birth control is hard to find. Any grocery store carries condoms.

Theory 5: Economic Woes

Again from Time:

The past decade has been difficult for this mostly white, mostly blue-collar city (pop. 30,000). In Gloucester, perched on scenic Cape Ann, the economy has always depended on a strong fishing industry. But in recent years, such jobs have all but disappeared overseas, and with them much of the community's wherewithal. "Families are broken," says school superintendent Christopher Farmer. "Many of our young people are growing up directionless."

So let me get this straight: if your daddy gets laid off, the obvious reaction is go screw a homeless guy to get pregnant? Huh. I would think the message would be rather different, something like, "You know, money's a little tight right now, and we might have to move somewhere else to find work, so maybe now's not the best time for you, our young teen daughter, to screw a homeless guy to get pregnant."

While losing a job can strain families, it does not "break" them or cause people to be directionless. People routinely seek out new jobs, through need or desire, and most families weather the transition just fine.

The article gives no indication of whether the parents of the pregnant girls are among the ones whose jobs "disappeared overseas." Interestingly, a Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/06/06/gloucester_stymied_by_rise_in_teen_pregnancy/) article also refers to the town's "economic advantage not usually associated with teen pregnancy."

(This last article is the one that points out that, upon hearing they were pregnant, some girls "broke into smiles. One exclaimed, 'Sweet!'")

Theory 6: A Pact

Clearly some of these girls were influencing others to get pregnant. But that doesn't explain why pregnancy became so popular in the first place or why getting pregnant didn't strike the girls as an obviously stupid idea.

Plausible Theory: Decline of Personal Responsibility

Time does offer a couple of telling lines.

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. ... [T]een parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

And a non-pregnant girl at the school told Time, "No one's offered them a better option."

I suggest that the larger problem is that America's students are taught, through explicit propaganda and implicit practice, that whatever they need, society will provide for "free." Their lesson starts with their "free" education, which is funded by taking others' resources by force. Now, their tax-funded schools provide "free" child care along with "free" education. If they can't afford to take care of their babies, they can sign up for "free" food, "free" housing assistance, "free" health care, and so on. (Notably, Massachusetts now has mandatory and highly subsidized health "insurance.")

These students—these products of the welfare state—think it's somebody else's responsibility to "offer them a better option."

Thankfully, the Boston Globe ends on a hopeful note:

Sandy Lakeman said she breathed a sigh of relief when her 19-year-old daughter graduated from high school and went to college in Florida. A single mother, she encouraged her two daughters to play sports and get part-time jobs in order to keep them out of trouble.

"I've had to be a waitress and a bartender my whole life and I've struggled," said the Gloucester native. "I don't want my kids to struggle."

Parents still make a huge difference. People have free will, and they can choose to make something of themselves. We still live in an economy sufficiently free to foster independence. While some young teen girls got pregnant, most didn't.

Peikoff 18

June 20, 2008

Leonard Peikoff has released his (http://peikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-06-16.018.mp3) 18th podcast, which deals partly with matters of religion. My summary of the discussion should not be taken as a substitute for the original.

1. Peikoff first answers a question about the military, expressing concern that it will suffer continued problems. He adds that the military is the consequence of cultural shifts, not a main cause of them.

2. What is a hero? What one regards as a hero depends on one's moral code, Peikoff answers, but in general a hero is the "complete embodiment of a certain moral code."

3. Is there any proof for reincarnation? I consider Peikoff's discussion of this point the most interesting segment of the podcast. "What do you call evidence?" Peikoff begins. He points out that evidence is based on observation and must be integrated with the rest of our knowledge. Claims for reincarnation rest upon no means of knowledge other than some sort of mystic insight. Thus, such claims reject reason, the senses, and logic, Peikoff argues. So what's going on with claims of reincarnation? Peikoff offers four possibilities. People making claims about reincarnation might through "sheer chance" work in some factually true detail. People can selectively focus on the more seemingly plausible claims while ignoring all of the obviously ridiculous ones; any psychic can occasionally make some accurate (if vague) prediction, just by chance. Children making claims about reincarnation might be subject to coaching or tricks. Finally, people making claims about reincarnation may simply be lying.

4. Peikoff makes a few notes about thinking conceptually.

5. Did Ayn Rand use or comment on psychotropic drugs? Peikoff replies that she was "completely against them." He distinguished between alcohol, which when used in moderation can facilitate relaxation but "doesn't warp your consciousness," and a drug that "blows up your perceptual faculty" such as LSD. I basically agree with Peikoff here, but I add that some illegal stimulants, when used in moderation, also don't undermine the perceptual faculty and likely have legitimate uses. Likewise, some illegal pain-killers are very useful for certain medical issues. Of course, while Peikoff didn't discuss the issue of prohibition, Rand opposed the prohibition of any drug.

6. Is there a problem with "flooding our country with Mexicans?" Peikoff answers that immigration "should be free," on the grounds that some people in the country shouldn't be able to forcibly restrict the rights of property and contract of others. Regarding the problems of the welfare state, Peikoff notes that the proper solution is to "re-instate capitalism," not restrict immigration. Regarding culture, Peikoff points out that some Mexican immigrants may listen to Spanish music and prefer Tequila, but this hardly subverts American culture. Personally, I regard some of of the Mexican immigrants I know as more American than the xenophobic statists trying to shut down the borders.

Comment by Neil Parille: "Regarding the problems of the welfare state, Peikoff notes that the proper solution is to 're-instate capitalism,' not restrict immigration." I haven't listened to this podcast, but this is a standard argument that Objectivists who advocate open borders give. Unfortunately, you have to deal with the situation as it exists today. The welfare state is not going away and allowing millions of people who are partial to the welfare state to enter the country is going to make the situation worse. And if we have open borders for Moslems, how do we screen out the small percentage that may engage in terrorist acts? What information would have been available to the government to indicate that the September 11 perpetrators were likely to commit terrorism? Did any of them even have criminal records in Saudi Arabia?

Comment by Cedar Bristol: Dealing with the situation as it is, you cannot save this country from bad foreign ideas by enacting them into law, or stepping up enforcement of laws based on them. If we were to have closed borders for muslims that would cause a very slight inconvenience to the small percentage engaged in terrorism and maybe cost them an extra few hundred bucks for fake papers. We got agents into occupied France and Nazi Germany itself. Border security is one of the silliest fantasies in the history of politics. Port security is a close second. The idea of unilateral disarmament is silly, stupid and self-destructive, but at least it doesn't devote government resources to the destruction of our own economy. That's exactly what fortifying our borders, or seriously trying to enforce our immigration laws, will do.

Schaffer in Trouble

June 20, 2008

Colorado Senatorial candidate Bob Schaffer is in trouble, (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9641640) reports The Denver Post based on a Rasmussen poll. "Democratic Congressman Mark Udall has opened up a 9-point lead" in the race. The story notes, "Udall maintains a large lead among women, while he extended his lead among unaffiliated voters to 21 points..."

The paper discusses attack adds on Jack Abramoff and "Big Oil Bob," but there's something else going on: Schaffer's strong anti-abortion views have also been in the news (though he's been running from the "personhood" amendment to define a fertilized egg as a person). That helps explain the difference among women and independents.

With gas around $4 a gallon, I think a lot of Coloradans wouldn't mind somebody in Congress who knows a think or two about oil and who isn't dedicated to undermining the country's ability to produce energy.

But in this race between a socialist and a theocrat, the socialist is winning. It's a scary thing when Udall's creeping socialism is the least-scary option.

Sixth Congressional

It's a different race in Colorado's Sixth Congressional, where Tom Tancredo has reigned. I don't think there's any way a Republican can lose there.

In the primary, the leading candidates have sprinted to the religious right. According to a (http://www.coffmanforcongress.com/news11.htm) poll released by Mike Coffman, the leading candidates are Coffman, Wil Armstrong, Ted Harvey, and Steve Ward.

Coffman (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/files/CQ/Mike%20Coffman.pdf) signed the questionnaire from Colorado Right to Life, agreeing that God opposes abortion, "abortion is always wrong" even if the father is a rapist, a fertilized egg is a person, and embryonic stem-cell research should be banned.

It's stunning that Colorado is likely to have somebody like Udall as Senator and Coffman as a Congressman.

Harvey also (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/files/CQ/Ted%20Harvey.pdf) signed the questionnaire, adding for the "personhood" question, "I organized a petition drive at my church."

Wil Armstrong (http://www.armstrongforcongress.com/issues) writes on his web page, "I am pro-life, and I will battle against any ill-conceived and family unfriendly legislation."

Ward has not replied to my e-mail asking him his position on abortion.

Socialists to the left of me, theocrats to the right. Here I am.

Comment by Ben DeGrow: I hate to disagree with you, but calling Bob Schaffer a theocrat is ludicrous. Anyone who is pro-life is a theocrat? If so, you drain virtually all meaning from the word. It's hard to substantiate your argument that Schaffer's understated pro-life views are suddenly hurting him in the polls, especially when the only kind of publicity on this front in recent weeks has been a small Post article highlighting attacks on Schaffer from a fringe, right-wing pro-life group.

Comment by Ari: I mean that Schaffer is a theocrat in the same sense that Udall is a socialist. Obviously, Schaffer is no ayatollah, and Udall is no Marxist. As I suggested, they both "creep" in those directions. Politics under Schaffer would be more faith-based, while politics under Udall would be more socialist-based. Publicity of Schaffer's views on abortion has hardly been limited to a single newspaper story, as I've indicated (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/republicans-botch-abortion.html) here and (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/schaffer-on-abortion.html) here. I don't know how much women and unaffiliated voters have been impacted by the issue of abortion, but surely nobody doubts that it is an important voting issue for many. I am not so much interested in recent swings in polls than in the simple fact that Schaffer is bombing with women and independents. Finally, people should be eager to disagree with me, provided that they can back up their arguments.

Schizophrenic Republicans

June 23, 2008

The May 31 resolutions of the (http://www.cologop.org/stateConvention.htm) Colorado Republican State Convention illustrate the difficulties and tensions of the party.

Included are the pro-liberty:

2. [T]he United States will pay any price, bear any burden... to assure the survival of our republic and freedom.

4. [T]he practice of inserting earmarks into the federal budget [should] be eliminated.

18. ...Colorado Republicans support the 2nd Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

32. ...Colorado citizens [should] be free to choose their own health care and health insurance and not be required to participate in any particular health care program.

33. ...Colorado Republicans oppose all single-payer health care systems.

35. ...Colorado Republicans oppose governmental taking of private property for the benefit of private individuals, private entitites, or for governmental revenue enhancement.

Unfortunately, Colorado Republicans often are wishy-washy in their support of liberty. For example, while they opposed single-payer medicine, and while I'm pleased with their statement about choice, they hardly articulated the need to defend individual rights and free markets in medicine.

The third point pertains to a "balanced federal budget." That's great, but the central issue is not budgetary balance, but budgetary control. I'd rather see Congress spend half of what it does today and still run a deficit, than spend even more and confiscate the difference.

Points 11-17 denounce illegal immigrants, except fourteen calls for "a well-regulated guest worker program." Absent is any call to restore liberty in immigration.

Points 19, 20, 22, and 23 pertain to church/state issues. (Point 21 is omitted; I wonder what it said?) The big one is that Colorado Republicans believe "that life begins at conception." Of course nobody actually doubts that; conception is the union of two living cells. But this is euphemism for alleging that personhood begins at conception, as Colorado's Amendment 48 asserts.

Colorado Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade, eliminate "public funds for destructive embryonic stem-cell research" (calls for an outright ban are noticeably absent), and restrict "marriage" to a man and woman.

These points show that Colorado Republicans are trying to walk the line. They say that "life" begins at conception, but they don't say that they want to prohibit all abortions. They say they don't want tax funding of embryonic stem-cell research, but they're silent on the issue of bans. They want to overturn the federal court rulings on abortion, but they don't say whether they want to leave the issue to states or allow federal prohibitions. They define marriage but don't mention domestic partnerships.

The result is to simultaneously pander to and insult the religious right, while convincing everyone else that Republicans remain the party of the religious right.

Meanwhile, the Democrats endorse the separation of church and state (at least as a rule) as they work to place ever greater portions of the economy under political control.

Wouldn't it be nice if some major force in either of the parties called for liberty across the board?

Amnesty

June 23, 2008

The following article originally appeared in Grand Junction's June 23 Free Press.

Government granted amnesty—and should do so again

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Amnesty is offered to those who have killed and wounded thousands of Americans. These illegal individuals have shown no respect for the borders or laws of the United States. Many among Congress and the public think the president has greatly overstepped his authority. But there it is. Lincoln's plan of reconstruction, the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, December 8, 1863.

President Andrew Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation of May 29, 1865, was similar to Lincoln's plan. Many historians have noted that the importance of these proclamations was twofold. They healed the wounds of the divided country by bringing full citizenship to those who would play a future role in the greatness of the country. And they restored justice. Johnson issued his proclamation "that peace, order, and freedom may be established."

If our presidents could offer amnesty to treasonous individuals responsible for over a half million deaths, surely we can offer amnesty to our neighbors from the south guilty only of working hard and providing for their families.

Recently Jill—we'll call her Jill to protect her privacy—was sitting in Senator Ken Salazar's office in Grand Junction describing to the senator's aide her husband's immigration problem. As a young child his parents brought him to the U.S.

Jill relates that they have been married for five years and have two beautiful children. They have been trying to work through the immigration system to legalize her husband at the cost of several thousand dollars.

Jill's husband had returned to Mexico to request permission to return to the U.S, a process he was told would take probably no more than three weeks. Jill vented her frustration with the immigration system to the senator's aide because she had just been informed that her husband and father of her children would have stay in Mexico for three years before he could apply to return.

Jill told the aid, "My husband came to this country as a child, his Spanish is poor, and he cannot find a job in Mexico. I am going to lose my house and car and go on welfare. But worst of all, the children will not be able to see their father."

We find it ironic that the "family values" crowd is most insistent on breaking up families in such situations.

Jill's husband did break the law, though he was too young to control his path. Neal Boortz mentioned to your elder author that illegal aliens have broken the law and therefore have to suffer the consequences.

However, our nation has a long history of disobeying unjust laws. Would you have condemned the Boston Tea Party for destruction of property? Would you have arrested the signers of the Declaration of Independence? Would you have convicted your fellow citizens for helping to free slaves in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act?

Two pillars of a free society are property rights and the right to contract. Business owners have the right to hire willing employees of their choice, whether they're from Grand Junction, Mack, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, or Mexico City. (Honestly, a lot of people from Los Angeles are more alien than many from Mexico.)

We should be particularly aware of this issue, as agriculture and other industries in this valley and this nation depend on migrant workers from Mexico.

Yes, U.S. citizens properly have greater freedom of movement within the country than people from other countries do coming in. Immigration should be controlled so that we know who's crossing to stop criminals and carriers of contagious diseases. But we should not stop people from freely contracting with U.S. citizens to rent housing, buy goods and services, and work for a living.

Some illegal immigrants get welfare benefits and "free" health care and education, you say. We agree that's wrong. But is it less wrong for a local-born citizen to take our money by force? The problem of welfare can and should be solved without restricting immigration.

Thankfully, Colorado made a modest step in the right direction this year with Marsha Looper's bill 1325, which points out, "Colorado's agriculture industry employs an estimated nine thousand seasonal workers annually, and the agriculture industry faces critical shortages of seasonal workers." The bill established a "seasonal worker pilot program."

While the bill takes needed steps to ensure local fruit doesn't rot on the ground, farmers shouldn't have to beg the state legislature for permission to hire people. This is America, the land of immigrants and the land of individual rights. To work for a living and contract with others for business is among our most important rights.

Mexicans and, yes, even Canadians should be allowed to freely seek work here, and business owners should be allowed to freely hire them. Amnesty is not a dirty word to us; it is necessary "that peace, order, and freedom may be established."

Comment by T. J. Welch: How many of our ancestors would have been able to come this country if they had to go through the same sort of bureaucratic red tape that exists today? People are quick to point out that illegal immigrants broke the law, but they ignore how irrational, arbitrary and immoral such laws may be.

The Faith-Based Politics of Abortion

June 24, 2008

A recent spat between Barack Obama and James Dobson offers a good opportunity to further reply to Colorado Right to Life and Bob Kyffin on abortion.

Here's what Barack Obama said on June 28, 2006, in his "Call to Renewal" (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/) address:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

I have expressed the same view on this web page. Note that Obama in fact holds a "pro-choice position."

The problem is that nobody has made an effective, non-religious argument for banning abortion. Instead, Colorado Right to Life (and the Republican candidates who signed its questionnaire) (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/colorado-right-to-death.html) explicitly invoke God's will as the foundation of their position.

Now Dobson of Focus on the Family has attacked Obama's stance, saying, (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/23/dobson-obama-distorting-bible-constitution/) according to the AP, "Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

Notably, Dobson is misrepresenting Obama's position. Obama did not claim that people must conform their views to what "everybody agrees" is correct; instead, he said people should make "universal" arguments "subject to argument, and amenable to reason."

Dobson's dilemma is that no reasonable argument supports the definition of a fertilized egg as a person or the prohibition of abortion. Thus, his only option is to "evoke God's will."

As if to further illustrate the point, Bob Kyffin sent in a reply to my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/reply-to-kyffin-on-abortion.html) criticism of his statements (stemming from my critique of Colorado Right to Life). Kyffin attempts to make a universal, reasonable argument in favor of banning abortion, but his argument completely fails.

Kyffin argues that an embryo, and even a feritlized egg, is a person because, first, "life begins at conception," and, second, a fertilized egg has "its own DNA" that dictates many of the egg's future traits, if brought to term.

Life not only begins at conception but precedes conception. Both the sperm and egg are living human entities. But not all living human entities are people. As I've mentioned, every cell in our bodies is a living human entity. Every cell is alive, and every cell contains human DNA. Yet Kyffin would hardly argue that we're committing mass murder every time we take a shower and exfoliate thousands of living, human cells.

Obviously, the mere fact that a fertilized egg contains human DNA does not qualify it for personhood for the same basic reason.

The difference that Kyffin seems to be going for, then, is that a fertilized egg, unlike a lone sperm or egg cell or a skin cell, has the capacity, if attached in a specific way to a healthy female uterus, to develop into an embryo, then a fetus, and finally into a born human being (a person). (We'll leave aside the complication that it's now possible to develop a new, independent human being from the DNA of any living human cell.)

But the fact that a fertilized egg has the capacity (in a certain environment) to develop into a person does not imply that the fertilized egg is itself a person. A fertilized egg has none of the relevant features of personhood, other than human DNA. It has no organs, cannot survive independently, etc. It is utter lunacy to call a fertilized egg a person. Kyffin might as well argue that an oak tree is a house, a field of grass a beef steak, or a silk worm a fine suit, because in each case the first thing has the capacity to develop into the second.

A necessary condition for personhood is the ability to survive independently, without any direct nourishment from the body of another. A newborn baby obviously needs a caregiver to provide food, warmth, etc. But a newborn baby is dramatically different than a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, in that the newborn baby is an independent entity that will continue to live on its own if left by itself. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus physically cannot leave the mother without physical removal, and, until lates stages, if left on its own it will quickly die. A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is radically dependent on its mother's physical body, whereas a newborn is not.

This radical, physical dependency is a large part of the reason why a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have the rights of personhood. One implication of this is that a pregnant woman has the right to get an abortion. As I've said, a woman who has decided to get an abortion is morally bound to get it in the early term whenever feasible. However, even in very-late term pregnancies, in any conflict between the safety of the mother and the safety of the fetus, the mother has every moral right to protect her own life. (She is also properly free to accept increased risk to herself in order to protect the fetus.)

Those who oppose abortion typically invoke the horrors of gratuitous, late-term abortions in order to advocate the prohibition of abortion even of a fertilized egg. But gratuitous, late-term abortions are practically non-existent. Practically all abortions occur in the early terms.

For what it's worth, here's what Roe v. Wade (http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/) has to say on the matter: "State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Generally, I oppose restrictions even for late-term abortions, because the practical effect would be to intimidate doctors with zealous prosecution, thereby interfering with their considerations of the "life or health of the mother."

The essential debate, though, is over abortion in the early terms. Kyffin and Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) hold that a fertilized egg is a person and therefore should be granted full rights.

As I have argued, one obvious implication of the view that a fertilized egg is a person is that doctors would be legally required (or at least bullied) into sacrificing the lives of some women. CRTL's position is thus morally abhorrent.

At some level, CRTL seems to be aware that its position is horrific, or at least at odds with the common decency of most people. And so CRTL has tried to create an escape clause. As I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/reply-to-kyffin-on-abortion.html) explained:

CRTL uses the same sleight of rhetoric. Recall that the position of CRTL is that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother." CRTL opposes "the intentional killing of the unborn child, for the life of the mother." CRTL states, "When the mother's life is seriously threatened by a pregnancy, of course it is morally justified to deliver the baby but not if the intention is to kill the baby. ... If the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder."

CRTL's position doesn't hold up for early-term pregnancies. "Delivering" an unformed embryo will kill it. Yet the only way that CRTL can preserve its stance that a fertilized egg is a person and still allow doctors to save the life of the mother is to pretend that "delivery" of an unformed embryo to death is somehow different than intentionally killing it. ...

So long as CRTL clings to the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person, the group has only two paths. Either it can openly acknowledge that it would sometimes sacrifice the lives of women, or it can allow women to get abortions whenever they see any risk to their lives. This second path, however, is inconsistent with CRTL's position that "It is... wrong... to kill the baby to save the mother."

CRTL's escape clause doesn't work. If a doctor removes an embryo, the embryo will certainly die. (I'm leaving aside test-tube scenarios.) Any early-term abortion, for whatever reason, is an intentional act that necessarily results in the death of the embryo.

Yet Kyffin tries to exploit the same absurd escape clause:

...CRTL says, "if the baby dies, it is a tragedy; if the baby is intentionally killed, it is murder." The result may be the same. The intent is clearly different. There is a distinct and critical difference between the unfortunate death of a baby whose life could not be saved, in the course of protecting the mother, and the situation where a doctor goes in and intentionally kills the baby when it is not necessary. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, there is a (presumably) 0% chance of the baby surviving, and that is unfortunate. And yet, CRTL would support a surgery to protect the mother, so long as there is no malicious intent in the doctor's mind to intentionally kill the baby. ... Since the baby needs the mother to survive, then of course CRTL would support taking such actions to preserve her life, even if it may mean the death of the baby...

I note my objection to referring to a fertilized egg or undeveloped embryo as a "baby," as the term wrongly implies personhood. Also, Kyffin is not, so far as I am aware, an authorized spokesperson for CRTL, so I will treat his comments as one possible interpretation of CRTL's stated positions.

Kyffin's intentionality argument is absurd (and could be taken as a reductio ad absurdum of his premise that a fertilized egg is a person). True, intention is an element of a criminal act. For example, one who intentionally fires a bullet into an innocent person is a murderer, while one who thoughtlessly fires a bullet over a crowd and strikes an innocent party has committed manslaughter but not (intentional) murder. But the idea that a doctor might remove a fertilized egg "to protect the mother," without having the intention to kill the fertilized egg, is laughable.

Here's an analogy. Let's say one of the Inquisition's torturers were brought up on charges according to modern law. If the torturer said, "Look, I didn't have the intention of inflicting pain on the victim; I had only the intention of saving the victim's soul, as well as the souls of observers," that obviously wouldn't fly. The pain was an obvious and necessary result of the torture; it was intentional. According to CRTL's premise that a fertilized egg is a person, a doctor who removes a fertilized egg, causing its death but not "intending" its death, should be just as guilty as the torturer. Given that CRTL's premise is ridiculous, the doctor is morally blameless.

I wish to stress that my case for legal abortion does not rest upon the fact that, if a fertilized egg were legally defined as a person and given full legal protection as such, the result would be the deaths of innocent women. It is true that CRTL's policies, if fully enforced, would kill women. However, even if by some stroke of a magic wand this were not the case, abortion should still remain legal, based on a woman's right to control her body. However, the fact that CRTL's policy would kill women, coupled with the fact that CRTL attempts to evade this fact, helps to demonstrate the weakness of CRTL's case.

There is no reason, no argument, no universal moral case that supports the notion that a fertilized egg is a person. The contrary claim can come only from faith, the belief that God said so. Such faith-based legal policies have no place in a free society.

Comment by Mark Call: This kind of disingenuous lie is well beneath your general level of integrity, Ari: "The problem is that nobody has made an effective, non-religious argument for banning abortion." I doubt you are ignorant of the record of Dr. Ron Paul, or of his many writings and comments on the subject. Stated simply, there is no rational basis for a law that makes abortion "legal" at 1 minute before birth, and "murder" at one minute after. Finally (and this is my own simple, non-statist, non-religious argument)— if I don't trust Adolf Hitler to define "personhood"—given that I can read history and see where that ended up—it is entirely logical that I don't trust ANY government ANYWHERE to define who is entitled to life, and who is not. Show me a line—Constitutional or otherwise—that our own former Republic has not YET violated! If I KNOW that they cannot be trusted to honor clear prohibitions like "shall not be infringed" or "Congress shall make NO law"—why in hell would I want to let them define "who" (or "what") is human and what is not? There IS no fallback position in the absence of FAITH in Big Brother that does not ultimately end up in a gas chamber or gulag. There's your "non-religious argument"! Show me why I should trust in THEM, rather than in God? And if God does not exist, I STILL prefer Him to the government that, unfortunately, certainly does. And it has not changed.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Ari, thank you for casting the position that a woman, as a human being with rights, should have the authority over her own body. She is not a vessel with no will or choice of her own, even when pregnant. As far as when independent human life begins, we can argue that it does so when a fetus is developed to the point where, when it takes its first breath, the foramen ovule closes and fetal circulation ceases; the infant's heart and lungs then supply oxygen and the infant's feeding supplies nourishment. We can support pre-term births before this point with modern technology, but the earlier the birth, the greater the risk of death and damage to the fetus. With respect to early pregnancy, we now have the ability to detect pregnancy in the first days, and thus we know that mother nature is incredibly wasteful of human conceptii. We conceive readily sans birth control but between 30% and 50% of these conceptions are lost prior to the 10th week, and usually around week 7, when important nervous system development happens. These numbers are probably low, as we do not know how many non-implanted fertilized eggs merely fail to implant and are lost that way. Many of the losses we do know about are due to grave genetic or developmental problems. The biology tells us that early pregnancy is very expendable, which makes sense considering the amazingly precise development that must happen to get a functioning human being at the end of pregnancy. If the fertilized egg is to be considered a legal human being, with all of the rights and privileges thereof, then are we to investigate every early pregnancy loss as possible manslaughter? This would entail criminalizing most fertile women merely for being women. The argument that a fertilized egg is equivalent to a developed, full term baby is biologically absurd. Any rational legal discussion ought to begin with reality. This is the reality of our nature as members of the mammalian order. The morality--which you so eloquently state--must rise from the biological reality and attendant evolutionary considerations, which I do not have space to discuss here. Finally, and even more insane is Dobson's contention that Mr. Obama has somehow misinterpreted the Bible. This discussion has nothing to do with the Bible or Dobson's religious belief. It has to do with Dobson's desire for power over others.

Comment by Mike Zemack: There is, I believe, a fact that needs to be acknowledged by those of us who believe that abortion should be legal. A credible case requires all facts to be taken into account. Bob Kyffin writes: "Eggs and sperm are clearly not human beings. They're not potential, because they could never turn into a human being by themselves. However, a 'fertilized egg' (what science refers to as a zygote or an embryo-only politicians refer to them as 'fertilized eggs') is actually a developing human being." Mr. Kyffin is right on this point. While agreeing with Ari in most of the essentials, I disagree with him that the cells of a fertilized egg or embryo equate to any other cell in the body. They do not. While technically true that "every cell in our bodies is a living human entity. Every cell is alive, and every cell contains human DNA", none have the unique identity of the cells that, together, make up the embryo. The embryo is not, of course, a person. The facts bear this out. But it is a potential (or developing, in Mr. Kyffin's term) person, which sets it apart from any other organ, cell, or cluster of cells in the human body. If an individual human being is the supreme value, then the cluster of cells that is a potential human being must be considered in that light. The moral seriousness of the issue should not be downplayed (I don't think that is Ari's intention). Considering an abortion should be taken as the profoundly important and moral decision that it is. After all, a potential life is at stake. A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy should not see an abortion as the equivalent of the mere termination of some inconsequential skin cells. She should consider the fact that she is carrying what could become a child… her child. She should weigh the abortion option against the possibility of carrying the pregnancy to term followed by adoption. She should seriously consider the unique attributes and potential of the embryo she is carrying, then rationally determine where the potential child fits in on her hierarchy of values, and act accordingly. The case for legal abortion does not rest on the idea that a fertilized egg has no value. That position is untenable. The unique attributes of an embryo, its identity, as a "developing human being" cannot be refuted, in my judgement. While life itself doesn't begin at conception, the beginning of an independent human being does. This indisputable fact, however, does not unravel the case against granting personhood status to the unborn at conception. The "pro-choice" case rests on three interlocking points. . . . the nature of the pro-creative process, the nature of inalienable rights, and the role of government as protector of those rights. Rights cannot conflict, because they are inalienable and thus possessed equally by all people. The fetus, then, has no natural rights precisely because it is dependent on the bodily functions of the mother. The mother can, of course, "grant" rights to her unborn by, for example, instructing a doctor to save the life of her baby in an emergency situation rather than her own. But as a matter of law, the state cannot recognize any rights attributable to the unborn, because that would transfer control of the body of the mother that the fetus depends on to the state, violating her rights. This negates the government's proper function as protector of all rights. I have thought long and hard on this subject, because of the fact that in an abortion a potential life is taken. There can indeed be valid and moral reasons for elective abortions. After all, a woman's entire life is wrapped up in the decision to bear a child. I would never begrudge a woman who, after serious reflection, makes the difficult choice to abort. But all to often, abortion is treated as the termination of just another meaningless clump of cells. Never-the-less, loyalty to the principle of individual rights demands the protection of all peoples' rights, responsible and moral or not. Those rights cannot and do not extend to the unborn. As we are learning by tragic experience in other areas such as property rights, the preservation of inalienable individual rights allows no exceptions or compromises. Mr. Kyffin, then, does not make his case. The big flaw is that he dances around the crucial issue of individual rights. A right to life entails more than just eating and breathing. A person held captive in a dungeon could do that. Despite references to the "right to life," he ignores the fact that the right to life includes the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The value of the potential person that is the embryo is to be determined by the woman carrying it, within the context of her overall set of values and goals in life…i.e., of her happiness and her liberty to pursue it. The woman whose body is carrying that embryo, and only that woman, is the determinant of those choices, based on her right to life. If, as Mr. Kyffin says, she is not entitled to make those decisions so crucial to her happiness, then who does? As I have argued before, the "right-to-life" case is based on faulty logic, is contradictory, and is self-defeating. If the unborn have rights that supercede the rights of the mother to control her own body (her property), then her rights are not inalienable. If her rights are not inalienable, then that whole concept is invalid, which means no one has rights, including the unborn.

Comment by Ari: According to Mike Zemack, I claimed "that the cells of a fertilized egg or embryo equate to any other cell in the body." I did no such thing. Instead, I pointed out that a fertilized egg has two important features in common with any other living human cell: both are alive, and both contain human DNA. I added, "[A] fertilized egg, unlike a lone sperm or egg cell or a skin cell, has the capacity, if attached in a specific way to a healthy female uterus, to develop into an embryo, then a fetus, and finally into a born human being (a person)."

Comment by Mike Zemack: I considered Ari's quote stated above in the context of his essay. I was somewhat conflicted, but I went with what I thought to be his essential point. I did not intend to misrepresent his position.

Comment: "A necessary condition for personhood is the ability to survive independently, without any direct nourishment from the body of another." Independently, or without direct sustenance of another human? Make up your mind. How about a person who is on life support, they cannot live independently. Or a paraplegic who must rely on the help of others to live day to day? But if sustenance of the mother is your criteria, then what of a baby that may be sustained outside the womb? Babies as young as 21 weeks old have been able to survive. What will happen when medicine is able to keep a fetus as young as a few weeks old alive outside of the mother? Will you continue to allow the wanton destruction of that life or instead of killing it require the mother to remove it, and pay for the medical care to raise it outside of her body (thus devoiding your argument of "it's a woman's body"). Or does that human life still mean nothing to you since the woman might have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the child they do not want physically inside of them alive.

Comment by Ari: Notice: I reject comments containing gratuitous ad hominem attacks (e.g., "such stupid," "feminazi") out of hand. I moderate comments for a reason; I don't wish to waste readers' time (or my own). Make a real argument, or don't bother.

Comment: Ari, Anonymous' comments are important. He's saying there is a point where human life and human rights begin (as Kyffin was saying too, if I read him right). Where is that point? You say it's not up to the moment of birth. If not then, where is it? Or is it at birth? How does that affect premies? Plus, do you realize you're making the exact same points Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Whose side are you on, Ari? What other rulings of hers do you agree with? Any? Why this one?

Comment by Ari: I let through the above anonymous posting by accident, as I could not detect an actual argument in it. Nevertheless... Human life is not the same thing as personhood. Human life precedes conception; personhood does not. A prematurely born baby, notably, has been born. Where's the problem? Finally, it's just silly to suggest that, because Person A seems to agree on some point with Person B, therefore Person A must hold other fundamental views in common with Person B.

More Assaults on Free Speech

June 25, 2008

Does free speech have a future in Europe?

Matt Purple (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattPurple/2008/06/25/british_novelist_who_despises_islam_may_face_hate_crime_charges) writes:

Ian McEwan, author of widely praised novels Atonement and Enduring Love, condemned Muslim extremists for attempting to establish a tyrannical society intolerant of women and homosexuals. His comments were made in the context of defending his friend and fellow novelist Martin Amis, who had previously been denounced as a racist for other supposedly anti-Islamic remarks.

"Martin is not a racist," McEwan told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. "And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on—we know it well." ...

McEwan's comments caused an uproar and were promptly denounced by the Muslim Council of Britain.

And that could be just the beginning. McEwan could also be brought up on hate crime charges, according to The [UK] Independent.

Is it true that Islamism promotes oppression of women and murder of homosexuals? Yes. It is also true that Islamism endorses terrorism and generally opposes civil liberties across the board.

For these reasons, I myself despise Islamism (not to be confused with modernist practitioners of Islam). And if we reach the point where we cannot say that without facing threats of criminal charges, then we'll no longer be living in America.

Tax Hikes Part II

June 25, 2008

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/10/refccentral.html) Referendum C was supposed to be the net tax hike to solve all our problems. Now, even though Referendum C pulled in dramatically more tax money than expected, Colorado's Democrats are proposing a new round of spending hikes.

In a June 24 e-mail (delivered early June 25), State House Speaker Andrew Romanoff announced, "A new initiative will give us a chance to fix the fiscal mess in Colorado's constitution. The proposal is called SAFE: Savings Account For Education."

The older SAFE stood for Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic. Call this one Statist Alternatives to the Freedom Epidemic. (I think somebody used the same acronym against the older SAFE, but I don't recall who.)

Or call it "Referendum C, Part II." Supporters of the new measure, "backed by a bipartisan coalition of business, education and civic leaders," are using the same game plan.

Romanoff writes:

Colorado's constitution contains conflicting commandments: one provision reduces revenue, while another increases spending. The net effect: chronic shortfalls in health care, higher education and other "optional" programs.

Referendum C brought us some relief: a five-year time-out from the revenue limit and a permanent fix to its ratchet effect. Hundreds of thousands of Coloradans are better off as a result, including 700 individuals with autism, Down syndrome, and other developmental disabilities, who will no longer be stuck on decade-long waiting lists for vital services; 25,000 at-risk children, who will be able to attend high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten; and 50,000 uninsured children, who will receive medical coverage. (Click here for an annual report on Referendum C.)

Unfortunately, Referendum C's time-out expires in 2010—jeopardizing much of our progress.

The obvious solution is to simply repeal the provision that increases spending. Cynics observe that Democrats supported that spending-hike measure precisely to undermine the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Romanoff fails to mention a detail about Referendum C: it permanently increased state spending. It was not merely a limited "time-out;" it increased the base level of spending forever. But that forever net tax increase is not good enough for the left; no spending hike is ever good enough. They want to seize even more of our money by force.

The entire point of Romanoff's proposal is to forcibly redistribute even more wealth. He wants more welfare for health care, more welfare for education, more welfare for practically anybody who claims to need it. (By dedicating new funds for education, legislators can use other funds for whatever they please.) The cost is liberty. The result is that Coloradans who earn that money and who oppose the tax have no say in how their money is spent. That's wrong.

People have the right to spend their income how they see fit, whether it's on their own children's health costs or education, a down payment on a house, a retirement fund, or a charity of their choice.

Romanoff repeats the same misleading claim he used for Referendum C: "SAFE does NOT raise tax rates or touch the constitutional right to vote on taxes." While it's true that it doesn't raise the rates, it certainly raises the net amount of taxes that people pay.

There is one difference this year. While Referendum C passed in rolling economic times, this year people are feeling the pinch of high gas and energy prices (thanks to the stifling controls on energy production imposed by Romanoff's comrades), along with housing problems. However, so long as a large body of people buy into Romanoff's redistributionist ethos, the tax hikers will be back again, and again, and again.

An Individual Right

June 26, 2008

Obviously the big news of the day is that the Supreme Court has affirmed an individual right to own a gun under the Second Amendment. That's all for now, because I'll be spending the next few hours reading the opinion. Volokh Conspiracy already has some interesting (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_22-2008_06_28.shtml#1214490319) analysis of the decision; a major issue seems to be Fourteenth Amendment incorporation. Eugene Volokh writes, "The majority doesn't clearly signal its view on the question, but it does suggest that simply citing some late 1800s cases which rejected incorporation (at a time when incorporation was generally being rejected as to nearly all of the Bill of Rights) will not suffice."

Who You Callin' a Liar?

June 27, 2008

A Pew poll recently found that most people think that other religious are a good enough ticket to heaven. (This differs from what some in my childhood church taught, that Catholics are going to hell.) In general, that particular poll result is a good thing. While it's unfounded to think that any religion offers eternal life, it's better to think that any "good person" can get into heaven than to think that only members of one particular sect are so destined.

Cal Thomas's (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/24/do-they-think-jesus-was-a-liar/) response to the poll is so silly it's hard to believe it's not parody:

Do They Think Jesus Was a Liar?

I am shocked and appalled over a newly published survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. It finds most Americans believe there are many ways to salvation besides their own faith. Most disturbing of all is the majority of self-identified evangelical Christians who believe this.

Apparently they must think Jesus was a liar, or mistaken, when he said: "I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me." Look it up. ...

Look it up? You mean, in the standard Christian Bible? Gee, that's helpful. Thomas urges Christian churches to fight heresy—yes, heresy!—"in their midst." All we need is another round of heretic purging.

Even if one believes that Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation, it's still possible to believe that Jesus would cut people a break for innocently believing other religious doctrines.

Thomas writes, "If there are many paths to heaven, Jesus suffered and died for nothing." That's not necessarily the case, even from a religious perspective.

Of course, if there are no paths to heaven, then Jesus did suffer and die for nothing.

Post, Rocky Err on Denver Gun Restrictions

June 27, 2008

The Denver Post misstated Denver gun ordinances today, and the Rocky Mountain News published a misleading claim about them.

Following is the Post's misstatement:

(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9712755) Gun ruling splits Coloradans
By Brian Malnes
June 27, 2008

Currently, Denver city ordinances... require state gun licenses to possess or own firearms...

Denver Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said, "I don't know where he got that from... Clearly he misunderstood something I said or what somebody else said... It might have been conflating the state concealed carry issue..." Colorado residents do need a permit to carry a gun concealed.

Broadwell added that the facts around licensing are important, as "that's what some cities do," such as Washington, D.C. However, Colorado has no "generalized permit system," nor does Denver have any plans to require permits.

The Rocky claimed:

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/27/supreme-court-decision-wont-affect-regulations/) Supreme Court Decision won't affect regulations in Denver, experts say
By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
Friday, June 27, 2008

In the city [of Denver]: major provisions
Semiautomatic weapons are banned in most cases.

Note that the quoted line was tacked on as extra information to the article, so it's not clear whether Morson wrote it.

Broadwell said the statement is true "to the extent that semiautomatic weapons are addressed in the assault weapons ordinance." However, I noted, most semiautomatic guns do not fall within Denver's assault-weapon classification. "I see your point," Broadwell said.

Broadwell also offered a more general disclaimer: "If there's not quotes around it... very often a [newspaper's] paraphrase will get something slightly awry."

Here's how (http://www.denvergov.org/City_Clerk/MunicipalCodeOrdinancesEtc/CharterandMunicipalCode/tabid/425214/Default.aspx) Denver's Municipal Code defines an assault weapon:

Sec. 38-130. Assault weapons.
(b) Definitions...
(1) Assault weapon shall include all firearms with any of the following characteristics:
a. All semiautomatic action, centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one (21) or more rounds.
b. All semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds or both. ...

McCain's Evangelical Problem

June 28, 2008

Bill Bunkley is (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillBunkley/2008/06/27/mccains_critical_moment) concerned that, by failing to rally his religious-right base, McCain risks leaving them at home on election day. Obama, on the other hand, is actively pursuing evangelical voters, Bunkley notes.

But there is a little problem with Bunkley's analysis. Obama is pro-choice, while McCain (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/02/john-mccain-on-religion.html) holds "ending abortion" as his ultimate goal. Thus, while Obama, who has openly endorsed the separation of church and state, can court evangelicals without scaring the hell out of everybody else, McCain cannot.

A recent (http://www.calvin.edu/henry/civic/CivicRespGrant/SurveyFindings.htm) poll asked people whether they believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." The percent in agreement is 35 for evangelicals, 60 for "Mainline Protestants," and 51 for Catholics.

Meanwhile, Bunkley cites a report from Pew indicating, "White evangelical Protestants... [make] up over one-third of those who identify with the GOP and vote for its candidates."

In other words, McCain can pander to the religious-right third of his base and (further) alienate the "libertarian" right and most independents, while Obama can court the Christian vote—including the third of evangelicals who support legal abortion—without alienating anybody.

The Republican Party is stuck. It can't win with the religious right, and perhaps it can't win without it (especially with candidates who also trash the First Amendment and call for sacrifice to the collective). As I've suggested, the only way forward I can see is a new coalition of civil libertarians of the classic left and modern right, free marketeers (of the Austrian and Chicago schools), and free traders of the left. Basically, we need a new liberty coalition.

Comment by Bon Sanders: "civil libertarians of the classic left" What do you mean by "classic left"? Classical liberals? "free traders of the left" Are there any? As I see it, no one on the Left is for free trade. They are *all* socialists or welfare statists. But maybe I'm wrong.

Comment by Ari: Yes, that was a little ambiguous. I mean left-leaners who actually care about the Bill of Rights, as opposed to the Marxists. I only said "classic" because young Democrats seem more interested in restricting the Bill of Rights than in defending it. Bill Clinton actually understood the importance of international free trade, and he bucked others in his party on the issue (even though his idea of "free" trade is overly regulated trade).

Rush at Red Rocks

June 28, 2008

This Wednesday I caught (http://rush.com/) Rush at Red Rocks, in my experience the absolute best place to see any band perform. It was as good of a performance as I've ever seen the band offer (and Rush is the best live band I've seen).

The northern lightning storm beyond Denver provided the perfect backdrop for the evening. Dark clouds sprinkled lightly till around 9:30, then the stars poked through. The breeze was noticeable but not annoying. Rush's web page even offers photos of the event.

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/08/snakes.html) noted, I count the new Snakes and Arrows album as among the band's best work. My appreciation for it continues to grow. Peart's famous drum solo was particularly breathtaking on Wednesday. In general, the band was in top form. I didn't love the new short films for this leg of the tour, but I understand the need to break thinks up a bit for a 3.5 hour performance.

As I was driving down the road from the theater, I happened across a couple of hitch hikers looking for a ride to their hotel. It turned out that the guy was from LA, his girlfriend from Austin. They've met in different cities to see Rush several times. They even came to Denver earlier in the month, when Rush's earlier date was cancelled due to weather. (I'm not sure they loved my ancient, rattling vehicle, but it got them to where they were going.)

Before I knew what he was doing, the guy handed me a $20 bill, and then he obstinately refused to take it back. I was strapped into my vehicle, so I said weakly, "If you leave that in here, I'll have to give it to charity."

After thinking about it for a while, I decided that (given the band's history) donating it to cancer research was the way to go. After poking around a little on the advice of a friend, I ran across the (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5856) Jonsson Cancer Center Foundation, which gets a four-star rating from Charity Navigator. That's where I'll send the check.

According to the band's web page, the tour will continue as follows:

June 2008

28th-St Louis, MO
30th-Cincinnati, OH

July 2008

2nd-Pittsburgh, PA
4th-Atlantic City, NJ
5th-Saratoga, NY
7th-Uncasville, CT
9th-Toronto, ON
11th-Manchester, NH
12th-Holmdel, NJ
14th-Wantagh, NY
17th-Hershey, PA
19th-Washington, DC
20th-Charlotte, NC
22nd-Atlanta, GA
24th-Indianapolis, IN

The fact is that Rush isn't going to tour forever. Now's an excellent time to catch them at the height of their powers.

Heller in the Rocky

June 28, 2008

Today The Rocky Mountain News published my (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/28/taking-aim-on-gun-decision/) article on the Heller decision. It begins:

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed what most Coloradans have long held and what our state's constitution also strongly protects: the individual's right to own a gun.

The June 26 ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller overturns Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that guns be kept inoperable in the home. Gone is the fantasy that the Second Amendment protects only state militias.

I go on to quote a bit from the decision, discuss its various defensible qualifications, and then criticize some of its looser language.

The Rocky does a great job editing material. I did want to add three brief points, though, that didn't make it through editing. First, concealed carry properly is restrained by the policies of private-property owners; those who wish to ban guns on their property are free to do so. Second, the checks that our Founders instituted are not limited to those of the three distinct branches; voters check all the branches directly or indirectly, the two houses of Congress check each other, etc. Third, we should see Supreme Court decisions in general "as the minimum standard of liberty" (I also had in mind issues of free speech and economic freedom).

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/28/taking-aim-on-gun-decision/) Read the entire piece.

Decline of the Religious Right?

July 1, 2008

Mark Barna of Colorado Spring's Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/articles/obama_37766___article.html/trying_say.html) believes that the influence of the religious right is in decline.

"The Christian Coalition of America, founded in 1989 to give Christians a stronger voice in government policy, is struggling financially," he writes. Has the funding gone to some similar group, or is funding for Christian-right politics dropping in general?

Barna adds:

Some polls show that young bornagain Christians are more tolerant of gays and lesbians. According to a 2007 Barna study, 28 percent of born-agains, of which evangelicals are a subset, under age 42 think it is morally acceptable to have sex with someone of the same gender, compared with 13 percent of older born-agains.

And nearly 33 percent of young Bible believers support abortion rights, compared with 27 percent of older believers—a surprisingly high percentage for both age groups, [David] Kinnaman [Barna Group president and co-author of "UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity"] said.

My guess is that the difference of views regarding homosexuality is more pronounced than what the survey suggests. My guess is that younger Christians, even when they claim to have a moral problem with homosexuality, don't have as great of a problem, don't want laws against homosexuality, and are more open to gay marriage.

Regarding abortion, another poll I recently (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/mccains.html) cited indicates that 60 for "Mainline Protestants" and 51 of Catholics support legal abortion.

The real question, though, is whether religious as such is having a greater or lesser influence on politics. If the religious right is faltering—and that's a big "if"—the religious left clearly is on the upswing, led by Barack Obama. Much of this is merely repackaging standard leftist views in Biblical wineskins. Yet clearly there's a market for that.

McCain's Court Picks

July 1, 2008

Just after the Supreme Court overturned D.C.'s gun ban in its Heller decision, a local Republican activists sent out the following e-mail: "It should frighten every American citizen (it frightens me that it doesn't!) that only ONE Supreme court justice stood between us and our unalienable right to defend ourselves. If anyone needs a reason to vote for John McCain, this is it."

A variety of conservatives have turned to the Supreme Court as the driving issue to vote for McCain, because he's so obviously terrible on free speech, environmentalism, and other issues that (some) conservatives care about.

After a long wind-up, Dennis Prager argues, "First of all, other than impeachment, there is no way to undo Supreme Court appointments, two or three of which a President Obama would likely make."

Prager names several issues: "On almost any social issue that matters—the right to bear arms, late-term abortion, the definition of marriage, capital punishment, and many others—a liberal Supreme Court will rule on these issues..."

Obviously I'm with him on guns. But on late-term abortions and the definition of marriage—and, let's name the real issue: the legal status of abortion—I fear McCain's appointees much more than I fear Obama's. I don't regard capital punishment as a central issue, but I have no problem at least restricting it to serious cases of murder with unassailable evidence of guilt.

On guns, the Supreme Court's defense of the individual right is unlikely to be overturned; nor are the many restrictions that the Supreme Court has now explicitly or suggestively allowed.

So far, I see little reason why McCain trumps Obama on the issue of judicial nominees. George Will (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/06/27/shining_a_supreme_light_on_the_candidates) points out that, on First Amendment grounds, McCain hardly stands out as a great choice:

But now another portion of his signature legislation [the Millionaires' Amendment] has been repudiated by the court as an affront to the First Amendment, and again Roberts and Alito have joined the repudiation. Yet McCain promises to nominate jurists like them. Is that believable?

Given McCain's (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=18997) explicit repudiation of our rights of free speech, I doubt that McCain would do much to defend any article of the Bill of Rights. Anyone who refers to our "quote 'First Amendment Rights'," as McCain has done, and who drives a campaign censorship law through Congress, has no respect for individual rights. The, quote, Bill of Rights is not properly subject to McCain's manipulations.

Obama Likes Faith-Based Welfare

July 2, 2008

Citing the AP, Mark Wolf (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/rockytalklive/archives/2008/07/obama_seeks_to_expand_and_over.html) notes that Obama likes Bush's faith-based welfare so much that he wants to expand it.

Obama (citing Wolf citing Politico) said:

I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea—so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

It is morally wrong to force people to transfer their resources to religious organizations, regardless of how those groups use the money, whether they "proselytize" with the money (though it's impossible to avoid), and whether their "programs" work (according to some federal bureaucrat).

And it's as disturbing as it is predictable that Bush's religious-right welfare program, designed to pander to that group, has been gleefully picked up by the Democrats. The GOP keeps thinking it can out-welfare the left, but, somehow, it keeps not working out that way.

Obama Leads in Colorado

July 2, 2008

Quinnipiac University (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1188) announced the results of a multi-party poll indicating that "Obama leads McCain 49—44 percent, including 51—39 percent among independent voters" in Colorado. That's got to be a little scary for state Republicans, particularly Schaffer's camp (for U.S. Senate).

I do not doubt that much of Obama's support comes from his paternalist economic rhetoric. With his simple, confident talk, Obama will be able to fool many of the people much of the time. But these results are also a repudiation of the religious right's sway over the Republican Party. Most independents get pretty nervous with McCain's talk of "ending abortion." Then there's the war—McCain's talk of limitless sacrifice for endless occupations also frightens many. (The connection between the war and religion is more distant but (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp) still present.)

Does abortion really matter? This poll result captures broader opinions and sentiments, but the difference between women and men is telling: "Obama leads 53—39 percent among Colorado women likely voters, while men back McCain 50—45 percent."

This is disturbing: "Obama's race won't affect their vote, 91 percent say." What's disturbing is that 9 percent said race either will affect their vote or they're not sure. That's far too high a figure. While there are many reasons to vote against Obama, his race is not among them, and we 91 percent need to keep pounding home that message to the dissenters.

This is not surprising: "The economy is the most important issue in their vote, 47 percent say..." Obama is the only one in the race saying anything at all interesting about the economy. Everything he says is wrong, but at least it's interesting. McCain sounds like he can do little but "me too" both Bush and Obama. This, to me, is the greatest lost opportunity of the election. An eloquent, principled candidate could explain how national monetary and housing controls led to the real-estate mess, how entitlements threaten our future, and how free-market reforms would pave the path to a more secure and prosperous future. Such a candidate would also explain how decades of political controls have mucked up health care and how a return to liberty would lower costs and increase quality. Instead, McCain is too busy talking about new controls and corporate welfare in the name of the environment. Meanwhile, the xenophobic right has helped give Obama a 62—36 percent lead among Hispanics, to use figures from the same poll.

Whoever first crosses the finish line, the result will still be a train wreck.

Comment by Mark Call: This line is a bit knee-jerk, Ari, and disturbing for other reasons: "What's disturbing is that 9 percent said race either will affect their vote or they're not sure. That's far too high a figure. While there are many reasons to vote against Obama, his race is not among them." I'm not among the 91%, or the 9%—and have long since become UNregistered to vote for choices of evils. But if I WAS less principled in that regard, I'd have no difficulty in voting for a man like Walter Williams, or a Dr. Ron Paul—regardless of his color. But Obama has undeniably played the "Race Card" far too often, as his radical preacher(s), wife, and other hangers-on makes painfully clear. I have a strong suspicion that some among that 9% who object to Obama on "racial" grounds don't object to his ethnicity, per se, but to the fact that he is not merely "black", but Black. Even his book makes this point in black and white. (And the reason I'd pick for rejecting Obama based on color is different, too. It's not that he's black, it's that he's RED.

The Controlled Press

July 3, 2008

If liberty means anything, it means freedom of the press. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

The freedom of the press means not only the right of newspapers to print what they want (though libel is subject to tort), but to hire the reporters they want, sell papers the way they want, and structure their business the way they want.

But Congress has made a law abridging the freedom of the press. It is enforced by the Department of Justice's antitrust division.

As David Milstead (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/01/milstead-media-meltdown-tests-two-newspaper-town/) writes for the Rocky Mountain News, "It was just eight years ago that The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News hung up the gloves and went to the federal government for permission to combine business operations."

A free press does not need to beg the federal government for permission—permission!—to conduct its business the way it sees fit.

Even if the antitrust laws did not influence the outcome of journalism—the stories that appear on the printed page—the controls would still constitute an unjust imposition on the freedom to conduct business, control one's resources, and contract by mutual consent.

But it is obvious that the antitrust laws do influence what appears on the printed page. Milstead notes that the two papers are struggling financially, and one might have to shut down. He writes, "The biggest obstacle to this scenario is the Justice Department, which blessed the JOA in the first place. In the past, government antitrust attorneys have made it difficult to end one of these partnerships early... [P]erhaps they would block any substantive change, forcing Scripps and MediaNews to pile up more losses in the name of editorial independence." Not only can the unjust policies of the Justice Department force businesses to run at a loss, in the process they strongly influence which reporters a paper hires. Two papers forced to compete at a loss cannot afford to keep on all of their top-notch talent, nor hire away talent from outside or the other paper. The result is not direct censorship, in that the federal government is not restricting what the papers can write about, but it is indirect censorship, in that the federal government is partly determining what the papers are able to publish.

A free market is not controlled by lawyercrats of the federal government. In a free market, the two papers would be free to openly compete, merge partly or completely, offer to buy the other out, or do anything whatsoever that does not involve force or fraud. It is simply not properly any business of any bureaucrat or federal official.

As an aside, assuming the Department of Justice grants permission for one of the papers to close, I sincerely hope it's the Post, but I doubt that it will be. I hope that at least the Rocky's editorial staff stays in business. If they're let go, too, I hope somebody has the brains and resources to keep that talent in Colorado.

Certain Unalienable Rights

July 4, 2008

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Various Christians take this line from the Declaration to mean that America was founded on Christianity. But of course Jefferson was a deist, and belief in some sort of creator or unifying force was common even among the Greeks. Even Spinoza could talk of God, basically as a synonym for nature. Life was in fact created, and the creator is natural law, including the process of evolution.

Jefferson before all (http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm) promoted reason: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

He was no great fan of organized religion: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

And he called for the separation of church and state: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

People have the absolute moral right—and deserve the fully-protected political right—to practice whatever religion they want, or no religion, however they choose, provided they don't initiate force against anyone else.

Pursuit of Happiness

July 4, 2008

We have much to be thankful for this July 4: our relative economic liberty has enabled people to produce computers, airplanes, automobiles, advanced medical scanners and treatments, and the many other goods that enhance our daily lives. Slavery has long been abolished, and nobody taken seriously publicly preaches racism. Women too have equal protection under the law. Though the country suffers some censorship and some infringements of the right to bear arms, the Bill of Rights very often is taken seriously and enforced. (See Dave Kopel's (http://reason.com/news/show/127201.html) summary of some of the advances.) Yes, we have much to celebrate.

Yet there are some who, in the name of patriotism, threaten to violate the core principles of America's Founding: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Never before has a country been explicitly based on the principle that individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness, free of coercion. (Of course the usual trinity at the time was "life, liberty, and property," with the pursuit of happiness the unifying purpose.)

Contrast the principles of the Declaration with the physical force threatened by Barack Obama:

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/03/obama-students-should-serve/) Obama: Students should serve
He calls on young people to help in their communities

David Monteroand Nancy Mitchell, Rocky Mountain News

Originally published 02:34 a.m., July 3, 2008
Updated 01:06 p.m., July 3, 2008

... The plan Obama outlined in Colorado Springs called for getting middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of community service a year and 100 hours a year for college students.

He said the goals would be achieved by making federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs. ...

"These are the voices that will tell you—not just what you can't do—but what you won't do," Obama said. "Young Americans won't serve their country—they're too selfish, too apathetic or too lazy..."

The pursuit of happiness, such as the selfish pursuit of one's education to advance one's life and prospects, is hardly apathetic or lazy. Students who desire to spend their time studying, interning, or working, as opposed to serving soup or working as menial construction laborers for no pay, are morally virtuous for their choices, to be commended, not condemned.

Of course, some volunteer projects and some work without pay can directly contribute to the pursuit of happiness of some students. But the choice should be up to them and their families. They ought not be blackmailed with their own money into performing bureaucratically-approved "service."

"Federal assistance" in this context means money taken by the national government—on threat of fines, arrest, or imprisonment—to be redistributed by national bureaucrats. This money properly belongs to the people who earn it, to be spent as their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness dictate.

The "service" that Obama advocates is not voluntary at all: it is involuntary servitude. Either you do the service that national politicians demand of you, or those national politicians will take (some of) your money by force without giving it back for your childrens' education. That's not service; that's a threat.

That Obama made this threat leading up to Independence Day, in the name of patriotism, shows just how far some have strayed from America's Founding principles. Let us have no more talk of forced, politician-approved "service." To restore our nation to its full greatness, we need to begin with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Lord Hanuman University

July 6, 2008

An AP (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364281,00.html) story about a monkey god appointed chairman of an Indian business school raised my eyebrows.

PTI (http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1169633) reports, "The Sardar Bhagat Singh College of Technology and Management... has Lord Hanumnan's [sic] idol occupying the place of pride in unfamiliar surroundings of the chairman's office."

Wikipedia has a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman) lengthy entry about the new chair.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that this is primarily about piety. One obvious result of the appointment is a lot of media attention.

PTI adds, "One of the two vice chairmen, Vivek Kangri said that the 'chairman' has delegated all powers in him and the other vice chairman to act on his behalf." This seems like a pretty good way to diffuse responsibilities—and criticism.

We Coloradans can't make too much fun of Hanuman's college position. He's a lot less silly than, say, Ward Churchill.

Rational Endowment

July 6, 2008

Recently The Economist (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11579107) published an article about the endowment effect: "[O]nce someone owns something, he places a higher value on it than he did when he acquired it—an observation first called 'the endowment effect' about 28 years ago by Richard Thaler, who these days works at the University of Chicago."

The magazine calls this "a squishy, irrational bit of human behaviour." One experiment "found that students were surprisingly reluctant to trade a coffee mug they had been given for a bar of chocolate, even though they did not prefer coffee mugs to chocolate when given a straight choice between the two."

I propose that the endowment effect is perfectly rational for three main reasons.

1. When we acquire an object, we perform mental work to figure out how we'll use it and what it's good for. True, we do much of this work before we purchase an item. Yet I routinely find that, after I acquire something, I think of more ways to integrate it into my life. To take a simple example, all of my usual mugs are currently in storage, so I just acquired two new ones. As soon as I did, I thought, "These would fit perfectly on that short shelf in the kitchen, where nothing else fits well." An object that we've spent mental energy figuring out how to better utilize is more valuable to us.

2. Automated habits are very valuable. As soon as we acquire something new, we start to work it into our regular routines. We develop habits for a reason; they're necessary time-savers. Granted, this point has force only after we've had an object for some (often short) period of time.

3. We reasonably avoid risk. Once we get the mug, we can look it over and make sure it isn't cracked or have any other unanticipated problem. (Before getting the two new mugs, I looked at a mug that I discovered has an irregular surface inside, making it difficult to clean; I ditched that mug.) Meanwhile, I've had the experience of opening a chocolate bar and finding that it has turned white and flakey—yuck. Recently I also purchased some chocolate bars that didn't taste as good as I anticipated, relative to other chocolate I like. Though I might equally prefer a shelved mug and a shelved chocolate bar, a mug in the fist is better than a chocolate bar on the shelf.

The Economist closes:

Other "irrational" phenomena include confirmation bias (searching for or interpreting information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions), the bandwagon effect (doing things because others do them) and framing problems (when the conclusion reached depends on the way the data are presented). All in all, the rational conclusion is that humans are irrational animals.

But those other things are simply logical errors. (However, joining a bandwagon is not always irrational, absent additional information.) They are problems that can be avoided with careful methods and checks. The fact that we know about these problems, and can take steps to solve them, demonstrates that we are fundamentally rational, not irrational, at least in capacity.

The endowment effect is not a logical fallacy; it is a perfectly sensible preference of the integrated, the habituated, and the known to the unfamiliar, the awkward, and the untested.

Comment: Is that the same Richard Thaler who, with Cass Sunstein, are big proponents of "nudging"? Check out this (https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/02/when_shove_comes_to_push/) Boston Globe article from the spring regarding their new book. The concept of giving people a little extra, behind the scenes help in making good decisions (nudging)is more than a little scary.

Comment: There is another, though perhaps less common, rational reason for the endowment effect: sentimental value. When we come to treat an object as a symbol for something or someone important, whether because of the conditions under which we got the object or because of some later association, it becomes more valuable then even an exactly equivalent object.

Pew's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey

July 7, 2008

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has (http://religions.pewforum.org/) published extensive results of its U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. I'll review some of the highlights.

Colorado has fewer Evangelical Protestants than the national average, at 23 versus 26 percent. We have fewer Catholics, at 19 versus 24 percent. And we have more unaffiliated people at 25 versus 16 percent. That helps explain the Interior West mindset of wanting to maintain church and state separation. Notably, (http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations) Affiliations does not list atheist or nonreligious, so presumably the 16 percent Unaffiliated category includes the nonreligious.

While a stunning 33 percent of the nation believes the Bible is literally true and the Word of God, 59 percent of Evangelicals think so. Evangelicals are topped only by Historically Black Churches at 62 percent. Notably, this is higher than the figure for Muslims (for Scripture), at 50 percent.

Meanwhile, 28 percent of the nation think Scripture is "written by men, not the word of God." Seven percent of Evangelicals think so. Bringing up the average include Other Christians at 44 percent, Jews at 53 percent, Buddhists at 67 percent, and the Unaffiliated at 64 percent.

On (http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons) abortion, a third of Evangelicals think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The figure is 62 percent for Mainline Churches, 48 percent for Catholics, 75 percent for Other Christians, 84 percent for Jews, 70 percent for the Unaffiliated.

Those who want "Smaller government, fewer [tax-funded] services" break the halfway point for Mainline Churches at 51 percent and Mormons at 56 percent. (I object to the phrasing of the question, because lower taxes mean more free-market services.) Those who want "Bigger government, more [tax-funded] services" include Historically Black Churches at 72 percent, Muslims at 70 percent, Catholics at 51 percent, the Unaffiliated at 48 percent, and Evangelicals at 41 percent.

The national figures for smaller versus bigger government are 43 to 46 percent, figures that should make Obama glow.

Cheers to Freedom

July 7, 2008

Today, for the first time ever, my wife and I purchased alcohol on a Sunday in Colorado. This is the first Sunday in my lifetime, and I believe since Prohibition, that this particular "capitalist act between consenting adults" has been legal. As we drove home, I said, "Amazingly, the sky is still in its place."

And it took a Democratic legislature to repeal the blue laws on Sunday liquor sales. The Republicans, who sometimes pretend they favor free markets, fought the reform for years. The Republicans seem determined to do everything imaginable to irritate people and lose elections.

Appropriately, we shopped at All American Discount Liquors. My wife and I purchased vermouth, then went home and cheered to freedom over martinis.

I don't know whether Sunday hours will be popular; many stores might choose to close, anyway. But that's not the point. The point is that willing stores and willing customers have the right to conduct businesses, on their terms, not the terms dictated by politicians.

That's one small sip for liberty.

Supreme Court Issues Spirited Gun Ruling

July 7, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080707/COLUMNISTS/512995890/1021) appeared in Grand Junction's July 7 Free Press.

Supreme Court issues spirited gun ruling

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The Supreme Court's June 26 Heller decision affirmed the individual right to own a gun just in time for the celebration of our nation's Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately, some of the negative commentary we've seen fails to do what the majority decision by Antonin Scalia does: take seriously and answer opposing arguments. Instead, some critics dredge up the same tired arguments to claim the Second Amendment means something different that what it clearly states.

Obviously, we cannot review the entire decision here, yet we'll highlight some of the more spirited debates. For the entire decision see SupremeCourtUS.gov. See also FreeColorado.com (June 28), Volokh.com, and DaveKopel.org. (We congratulate Kopel, who works out of Golden's Independence Institute, for his contribution to the victory.) For extensive documentation, see DCGunCase.com.

Incidentally, we were pleasantly surprised to see listed with this last source, joining the National Rifle Association, a supportive brief from the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues "that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms..." Lest the matter be considered only a conservative issue, Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty also filed a supportive brief.

On to the debate! The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does the first part limit the second?

Scalia argues that "the former [clause] does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose." Referring to other historical cases, Scalia notes that "a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause." In answer to Stevens's claim that such a reading ignores the force of the first clause, Scalia replies that "operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues."

The "right of the people" obviously refers to an individual right, not only in the Second but in the First and Fourth Amendments. Scalia argues, "Stevens is of course correct... that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined 'assembly'... And Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is 'primarily collective in nature'," according to historical sources.

Does "bear arms" mean only to carry weapons as a soldier? No. In pretending otherwise, notes Scalia, Stevens and others "manufacture a... definition, whereby 'bear arms' connotes the actual carrying of arms... but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been appraised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding."

Restricting the phrase "would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed," Scalia adds. Moreover, if "bear arms" means only to serve as a soldier, then what does "keep and bear arms" mean? Scalia writes, "It would be rather like saying 'He filled and kicked the bucket' to mean 'He filled the bucket and died.' Grotesque."

Stevens relies on a Linguists' Brief to support the notion that "bear arms" means only to serve as a soldier, Scalia notes. That brief dismisses other non-military uses, such as "bear arms... for the purpose of killing game," as "expressly qualified," Scalia quotes. In other words, "bear arms" supposedly only has non-military meaning if used in a sentence that clearly states some other purpose.

Scalia replies, "That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics)." While "a modifier can limit the purpose" of bearing arms such as to killing game, that hardly suggests the unqualified right "to keep and bear arms" refers only to the military. The fact that bearing arms can be qualified—for military use, for killing game, for self-defense—shows that alone it carries no military implications.

We'll stop there. We bet you didn't know that Supreme Court decisions could be not only refreshingly sensible but funny. What's better than making fun of pedantic linguists? (We imagine they're still trying to figure out the bit about kicking the bucket.)

With his Heller decision, Scalia has done more than protect a Constitutionally enshrined right. He has assured the people that at least some in government won't distort the clear meaning of our founding documents to allow limitless state power. While we dispute some of the exceptions Scalia allows, we're gratified to learn that, here in America, individual rights still matter.

Thanks to Scalia's well-reasoned analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment, the pretense that it protects only state militias has not merely stubbed its toe on the bucket but kicked it completely.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

McCain on the Economy

July 8, 2008

So John McCain came to Denver yesterday to talk about the economy. While I am unable to find many specifics, the basic idea seems to be to slightly restrain increases in government spending, wait for the economy (i.e., the tax base) to recover, and keep his fingers crossed. He can say he's going to balance the budget by 2013, but somehow I don't think he'll get too excited if he gets elected and that turns out not to be easy.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9812214) quotes McCain as saying, "Government has grown by 60 percent in the last eight years. That is simply inexcusable." Well, what would have been excusable? Growth by 59.5 percent? Obviously, McCain did not attach a real figure because then he would have had to talk about what he would have cut.

The Post offers a few generalities:

He also said he'd veto every bill that includes wasteful spending. ... Keeping a balanced budget in the long term would mean reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, among other things, according to the campaign's economic plan. ... McCain's economic proposals... include a summer gas-tax holiday, building 45 nuclear plants, lowering taxes, cutting the estate tax, increasing off-shore drilling, encouraging free trade and doubling the child income-tax deduction from $3,500 to $7,000.

I find it humorous that some media accounts I've read sound as though McCain himself will be building nuclear power plants. Somehow, I doubt that. Rather, what McCain is talking about is restraining political force currently preventing the building of such plants, as well as off-short drilling and free trade.

Nevertheless, McCain's plan to allow nuclear power plants is among his most practical and workable reforms.

What constitutes "wasteful spending" is a matter of opinion. I consider practically every bill to spend wastefully. Somehow I doubt that McCain's throw-away line means much.

"Encouraging free trade" is merely a euphemism for "reducing the political impediments to free trade." Unfortunately, free trade for McCain comes at the cost of expanded welfare. He (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/Read.aspx?guid=4c980d5b-dfd3-40a3-9663-7d14df1f1468) said:

I understand free trade is not a positive for everyone. If a worker loses a job we must retrain them and prepare them for 21st Century jobs. That's why I have proposed a comprehensive reform of our unemployment insurance and worker retraining programs. We will use our community colleges to help train workers for specific opportunities in their communities. And for workers of a certain age who have lost a job that won't come back, we'll help make up the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one until they've completed retraining and found secure new employment at a decent wage.

"We must retrain them?" In other words, McCain wants to force some people to transfer more of their wealth to others, both for education and for salary subsidies. So the cost of free trade is an expansion of the welfare state. That's McCain's brand of freedom—freedom by force. Exactly how he's going to expand welfare and balance the budget is unclear to me.

In the same speech about balancing the budget, two words are noticeably absent: Social Security.

Here's what his web page (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm) has to say about it:

He will fight to save the future of Social Security while meeting our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts—but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. He will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity.

As I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/socseclinks.html) pointed out, "personal accounts" do absolutely nothing to resolve the pending Social Security crisis.

So what is the substance of McCain's plan to "reform" Social Security? Until he explains how he plans to cut somebody's benefits, his "reform" amounts to nothing. As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/phaseout.html) suggested, the most sensible reform is to slowly raise the pay-out age over several decades until the program is phased out. This suggestion is also consistent with economic liberty.

But liberty is not something in which McCain is particularly interested. If he's said a serious word about how people deserve to keep the money they earn, I've not heard about it. Meanwhile, just today (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/Read.aspx?guid=4f09abb6-e44d-4c17-b704-2a7a2da6a618) McCain has reminded us that he drove through his campaign censorship law. And his web page continues to (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) state that McCain's ultimate goal is "ending abortion."

John McCain might allow a slightly freer economy in some areas relative to the far-left Obama, yet he powerfully stands for welfare, censorship, and faith-based politics.

Did Resurrection Myth Precede Jesus?

July 9, 2008

Sheera Frenkel of The Times (of London) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4295804.ece) reports a debate of a Dead Sea tablet called Gabriel's Vision of Revelation. She writes:

Israel Knohl, a biblical studies professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argued yesterday that line 80 of the text revealed Gabriel telling an historic Jewish rebel named Simon, who was killed by the Romans four years before the birth of Christ: "In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you."

Professor Knohl contends that the tablet proves that messianic followers possessed the paradigm of their leader rising from the grave before Jesus was born. ...

Professor Knohl defended his theory at a conference at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem marking 60 years since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He said that New Testament writers could have adapted a widely held messianic story in Judaism to Jesus and his followers.

Others, of course, dispute this interpretation of a damaged text.

I regard it as an intriguing but unproved theory.

But it won't affect modern Christianity, either way. If it were shown definitively that resurrection stories preceded Jesus, Christians would respond by saying that of course the resurrection was prophesied, and this is not diminished by its application to a false prophet.

It's not as though this is the only myth suspected to precede Christianity; other resurrection myths are known to precede it. For example, Paul Tobin (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paganrising.html) summarizes:

The myth of Adonis was known to the Greeks as early as the fifth century BCE. The Egyptian myth of Osiris dates back to at least 4,000 BCE and was recorded in detail by the Greek biographer Plutarch (c46-120 CE). The Persian Sun-God Mithras was mentioned in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c480-c245 BCE). The cult of Mithraism reached Rome in the first century BCE.

The way the early church fathers defended against the mystery religions showed that they knew these pagan myths antedated the Christian ones. Justin Martyr (c160-165) claimed that the devil plagiarized Christianity by anticipation with the pagan religions in order to lead people from the true faith. He claimed the myth of the virgin birth of Perseus, an ancient Greek legend that preceded Christianity, was pre-copied by the "deceiving serpent" (Dialogue with Trypho: 70). Similarly he asserted that the cultic rites of Mithraism had a diabolical origin (Apology 1:66). Tertulian (c160-c225) made the same claim: that it was the devil that provided this "mimicry" [notes omitted].

If you believe that there is a God who can raise people from the dead, that you will live forever in Heaven, that you talk to God, etc., then you'll hardly be troubled by conflicting resurrection stories. This is, after all, about faith. If we restrict the discussion to proof, then all resurrection stories are easily recognized as myths.

Comment:

From a non-Christian point of view, it is by no means necessary to show that other resurrection myths preceded Christianity, although it seems fairly clear--no matter what the scholarly obfuscators may claim--that this is in fact the case.

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense to see e.g. Mithraism and Christianity as taking historical form at roughly the same time as responses to developments in the Roman world.

In fact, historically speaking, this is a far more plausible view than one that requires strict genetic relationships between alternative versions of similar myths.

The fact that a variety of materials went into the mix that created these contending cults, some older and some of longer standing, makes a non-Christian view more rather than less plausible, since the point is that Rome needed a cult to repair the gaps in the patchwork of its official beliefs, and that if Christianity had not arisen spontaneously it would have been as necessary to invent it as it was for the Alexandrian Greeks to invent Serapis.

Likewise with regard to the historicity of Jesus, it is not essential to prove that there are no historical materials in the bricolage that is Christianity.

There may have been someone called something like Jesus who was executed in some fashion by Romans, maybe even by Pontius Pilate, whose historicity is indisputable.

But there is no factual evidence whatever to support projecting on this still-shadowy being any clear-cut narrative whatever. The problem is not a debate between a historical Jesus and a mythical Jesus, but rather the question of whether such historicity as Jesus may have possessed has anything substantially to do with what became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

And that is the crux of the matter. If Christianity had not become the official religion of Rome, we would not be discussing Jesus today. That Christianity arose to that position out of a welter of contending cults that all addressed similar perceived deficits in the official patchwork of Roman religion is beyond dispute.

The question is not whether this is true but what it means. How easy it is to lose sight of this fundamental matter! At its origins, Christianity is merely the most successful of a number of contending Roman cults.

In my opinion, that is still the most useful light in which to regard it.

Conchords

July 9, 2008

For something offbeat... I find (http://www.conchords.co.nz/) Flight of the Conchords, a "folk parody" duo from New Zealand with their own (http://www.hbo.com/conchords/) HBO show and an album, to be hilarious.

For example, their (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoWfambAi6A&NR=1) rap song "The Hiphopopotamus vs. Rhymenoceros" is a classic. (See also the (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FArZxLj6DLk) TV version, which is considerably modified.) For more great rap, listen to (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bqxnm6t3QMw) "Mutha Uckers." ("I pay my mutha uckin rent fortnightly...")

Then (http://youtube.com/watch?v=SWf3iJjqYCM) there's "Frodo, Don't Wear The Ring." (The video is even funnier in the context of the show.)

Their great love song is (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WGOohBytKTU) "Business Time."

If sci-fi is your genre, check out (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9r5-uHPpOug) "The Humans Are Dead" (and (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ga0M_kQVzsI) TV version). Binary solo!

There are other funny ones, but those are some of the ones that continue to crack me up.

Angels on Earth?

July 10, 2008

Call it the Christian's Enquirer. My wife received in the mail an invitation to subscribe to (http://www.angelsonearth.com/) Angels On Earth magazine. Here's the pitch:

We have reserved in your name a FREE issue of ANGELS ON EARTH, an inspiring magazine about God's messengers and their work in the world. And when you accept it, you also get a FREE GIFT—the 2009 ANGELS ON EARTH CALENDAR! [OMG!]

There is no risk—no obligation to subscribe. We simply want you to experience this magazine presenting the stories of angels and the messages they deliver.

Stories of tragedies averted and destinies altered. Stories filled with profound mystery, yet radiating faith-affirming hope!

Angels still visit us today, ministering spirits guard us and guide us and give us reassuring evidence of God's love. You'll find these stories in ANGELS ON EARTH. ...

Wow. There are enough people who believe this nonsense to support a magazine. And I suspect that, relative to the Enquirer, a higher percent of subscribers help choose our political leaders.

I can hardly believe I have to make this point in the modern world, but here it goes. What are all these alleged angels doing when people die in car crashes, die at the hands of criminals, get cancer, or drown? What about "stories of tragedies not averted" and "destinies altered for the worse?" The claim that angels are responsible for all things pleasant in the world is a gross sort of bias that simply ignores cause and effect, luck, and contradictory facts.

Great Debaters

July 10, 2008

The Great Debaters tells the (fictionalized) story of a black college debate team in 1935. What I like about the movie is that it takes education and language seriously. This was a serious college that attracted top-notch faculty and dedicated students. Be sure to watch the documentary, which includes interviews with people associated with the school in that era. I find myself contemplating a local debate club; the film inspires students and adults alike to reaffirm their commitment to education.

By its subject matter, the film necessarily deals with the politics of Jim Crow, segregation, and related issues. What I found unfortunate is that the film conflates left-wing themes with its universal themes of liberty. But it was an era of socialist ideas, and some of the people on which the film is based held such ideas.

Also unfortunate is the film's gratuitous and implausible love triangle. Not every movie needs a sex scene, and this one seemed quite out of place.

Maybe it's just because I'm getting a little older, but it seems like practically every movie coming out these days is terrible. The three most popular genres seem to be ridiculous horror, mindless action, and stupid comedy. So this film about discussion and the intellect is quite welcome.

Denver Post Takes Yorktown Out of Context

July 10, 2008

Okay, so The Denver Post is running an unofficial campaign against Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate. We got that. But I wish the paper would at least stick to real news. Unfortunately, its (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9833565) story today by Michael Riley ("GOP's Schaffer views Yorktown as 'classical'") is too lame even to rise to the level of sensationalism.

Riley writes about (http://www.yorktownuniversity.com/) Yorktown University:

The online university boasts some respected scholars, but the description of its American culture concentration also describes popular music, modern art and psychology as "signs of serious cultural disturbance."

Currently accepting students for just one degree—a master's in government—Yorktown is seen by its founder as a place where students are steeped in the principles of supply-side economics, can freely talk about their views on abortion and other issues, and seek to restore the country to a path of what the course catalog describes as "cultural recovery."

One ethics lecture is titled "The Enlightenment as Failed Moral Revolution."

This is an odd sort of institution, and Schaffer's association with it is real news. But Riley takes the quotes from Yorktown out of context.

To take the last point first, Riley does not bother to mention (and I couldn't find online) what "The Enlightenment as Failed Moral Revolution" was about. Did the class suggest that the enlightenment itself was a failure, or that it failed to reach its full potential? I suspect that it was the latter, but the article just leaves the point hanging, as if the mere title were an indictment.

What does it mean that Yorktown "describes popular music, modern art and psychology as 'signs of serious cultural disturbance'"? Again Riley provides no context. This time, I was able to find useful information from Yorktown.

The first point to notice is that one of the Yorktown University Advisors is (http://www.yorktownuniversity.com/grad_advisors.cfm) Wanda Franz, who, notably, earned "her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from West Virginia University (1974)" and who "has taught life-span developmental psychology at both the graduate and undergraduate level."

Obviously, Yorktown does not take psychology itself as a "cultural disturbance," an interpretation that Riley leaves wide open.

Here's the (http://www.yorktownuniversity.com/grad_ma_govt.cfm) relevant quote in its entirety:

Mankind does not live by bread, nor economics, alone. We have become aware that our culture defines who we are. And, if that culture becomes distorted, our character, too, changes-for the worse. Under the influence of modern telecommunications, no society in the world is immune to the viruses common to modern life. Radical change has become a mode of life, and, as the sociologist Emile Durkheim has taught us, radical change (good or bad) is destabilizing. Periods of radical change affect everyone, as high divorce rates, high rates of abortions, acceptance of "recreational" drugs, attest. Popular music, works of art, popular literature, Pop Science, Psychology, and the many New Age nostrums to which modern man clings, are responses to radical change, and signs of serious cultural disturbance. A reasoned critique of modern culture, and a course for recovery, has been outlined by scholars of several generations, but no college or university-until now-offers an entire area concentration in a MA degree program in this subject.

There's a lot wrong with this statement from Yorktown. First, while people are influenced by culture, it hardly "defines who we are." People defy their cultures all the time. America is hardly in a period of "radical change;" pragmatic incrementalism rules the day. The material does refer to "Psychology" as a "New Age nostrum," and that's just silly. Likewise, most popular music, works of art, literature, and science are not "New Age" (unless "New Age" is merely a synonym for modernity, which would make the point rather obvious). However, despite the fact that the material from Yorktown is horribly written, obviously Yorktown is not denouncing psychology across the board, nor is it claiming that psychology is a "cultural disturbance." Instead, the claim is that, because of "radical change," some people turn to psychology. I don't think it's controversial to claim that people who seek out psychologists often do so because of upheavals in their lives.

Riley found a real news story. It's a pity he didn't treat it as such.

Muslim Creationists

July 11, 2008

Reuters (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30607_Radical_Muslim_Funding_US_Creationist_Groups) reports (via Little Green Footballs via Jim M.):

Unknown outside Muslim circles two years ago, Adnan Oktar—the 52-year-old Turk behind the pseudonym Harun Yahya—caught the attention of scientists and teachers in Europe and North America by mass-mailing them his 768-page "Atlas of Creation". His lavishly illustrated book preaches a Muslim version of creationism, the view scientists usually hear from Christian fundamentalists who say God created all life on earth just as it is today and oppose the teaching of Darwin's evolution theory.

Obviously I'm not going to spend the time to acquire this book and evaluate its particular claims. All creationist claims proceed down a similar path. Here I point out merely that creationism depends on supernaturalism.

But this does point out a difficulty with using creationism to promote a particular sect: all religious sects believe in creationism. Creationism invokes some designer, but is this designer a god of the Greeks, other pagans, the Muslims, the Christians, or the deists? As a tool of propaganda, creationism works only with those predisposed to believe the particular faith of the creationist. I somehow doubt that American Christian creationists would appreciate the use of Oktar's book in a class that taught "intelligent design."

Comment by Diana Hsieh: Actually, the Greek polytheists did not believe in a "creator." They thought that the universe was eternal. At most, the gods might have ordered existing matter. (That doesn't bear on your main point, but it's noteworthy because it's an indication of the rationality of Greek culture.

America's Mental Recession

July 11, 2008

Here' what Phil Gramm (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/mccain-adviser-addresses-mental-recession/) told The Washington Times:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.

Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5350099&page=1) replied, "He didn't say this but I guess what he meant was that it's a figment of your imagination, these high gas prices."

That's neither what Gramm said nor what he meant.

At least one blogger has taken the smear (http://chuckfor.blogspot.com/2008/07/mccains-gramm-mental-recession.html) further: "You see in the world Gramm and McCain move in there is no pain, no lost jobs, no wage depression, and no choices between gasoline and other items."

Gramm didn't say that either.

Todd J. Gillman (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/071108dnpolgramm.424e457.html) claimed in The Dallas Morning News that Gramm said America's "economic complaints are mostly 'mental'." No, he didn't.

It turns out that the term recession has a technical (http://www.investorwords.com/4086/recession.html) meaning of "a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters." We're not in a recession. Furthermore, all is not doom and gloom in the economy. That was what Gramm said, and that was what he meant. He did not dispute the fact that gas prices are high, that the housing market is mess, etc. He merely said that, as of yet, the sky has not fallen. At most, he could be criticized for overstating American dominance.

By the way, of the several accounts I've read of the debate, not a single person has even attempted to dispute Gramm's factual claims.

I'm not too concerned about the formal definition of a recession; the economy is having trouble, whether growth is barely positive or not. The "mental recession" I'm worried about is the one that allows Gramm's comments to be taken grossly out of context to generate countless bogus "news" stories. Wouldn't it be nice if the presidential race were actually, you know, about the real issues and stuff?

Comment: "It turns out that the term recession has a technical meaning of 'a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.' We're not in a recession." That statement sounds like it came from Ben Bernanke himself. You're generally more careful and thoughtful in your reporting than this. Whether or not we're in a recession can depend on how you calculate GDP. The federal government calculates inflation (and thus inflation-adjusted GDP) differently than in the past. Many economists believe these new numbers report inflation lower than actual, and thus GDP higher than actual. href=http://www.shadowstats.com/article/57 True inflation and GDP are difficult to perfectly define and measure, so the subject of what the "actual" is could be a rat-hole. I think the government has a lot of motivation to do what it has been accused of (understating inflation allows for lower entitlement payouts and less attention to the printing presses over at the Fed)...so even if the folks at ShadowStats are off (over-calculate inflation) I think it is fair to eye the governments numbers with skepticism as economists do. Anyway, the new methods make it more difficult to actually achieve a technical recession relative to the old methods. What might not be considered a recession today might have been in the past.

Ba-a-a-a-a

July 14, 2008

I'm still holding out hope that (http://ilivevalues.com/blog/article/being-an-obedient-follower) this is a parody. iLiveValues.com published a blog entry called, "Being an Obedient Follower." The web page claims to be published by ERLC, which (http://erlc.com/) links to The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the (http://erlc.com/erlc/about/) vision of which is "An American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority."

The point of the blog entry is to teach readers about sheep. We need to know about sheep because, the blog reminds us, Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep. So the idea is that we are supposed to be Jesus's sheep, and God's hand-picked followers are supposed to "feed" us.

Here are some of the descriptions of sheep offered by the blog: "natural inclination to follow a leader... a strong lead-follow tendency... no such thing as a 'natural born leader' among sheep. The day's leader among the flock is normally just the first sheep to move... when one sheep attempted to leap over a 15 meter wide ravine and instead fell to its death, nearly fifteen hundred other sheep followed... sheep are not as dumb as we have been told... just below pigs and on par with cattle in IQ... no sense of direction... Lost sheep usually will walk around in endless circles, in a state of confusion, and even panic... Sheep spend most of their lives eating and drinking, but they are not careful about what they eat and drink... Sheep are almost entirely defenseless."

So this is the model for Christian behavior, apparently. How are God's appointed shepherds supposed to treat these sheep?

"A shepherd would sacrifice for his flock. His flock implicitly trusts him. Sheep need a leader, even if they don't know they do."

I imagine that the "sheep" especially need a "leader" if they protest that they don't.

Thankfully, I know many Christians who would just as soon shop for guns or "feed" sheep to their children.

Denver Post's Crack Economic Team Strikes Again

July 14, 2008

Let us say that, out of fifty people, Ethan has a cold. In a health evaluation, Ethan ranks well in cardiovascular health, blood pressure, body weight, muscle tone, and general attractiveness. Overall, he is ranked the fifth-healthiest person of the group. What would you think of a newspaper that praised colds as the cause of Ethan's good health? Perhaps you'd think the newspaper is about as idiotic as The Denver Post.

Here's what the Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9871158) claimed in an editorial today:

CNBC has just ranked Colorado as the fifth-best state for doing business—the first time our state has finished in the coveted top five.

The biggest reason for Colorado's leap up the charts, according to CNBC analysts, is that it "has been actively courting what it calls the New Energy Economy—wind and solar. The effort has paid off in jobs, and a big jump in our business friendliness category, finishing fifth this year, from number 12 in 2007."

First of all, who are these "CNBC analysts," and why should we believe any of their opinions about the economy?

Second, the Post misquotes CNBC, which notably does not claim that the "New Energy Economy" is the "biggest" reason for Colorado's leap. Instead, here's what CNBC actually (http://www.cnbc.com/id/25192671) claims:

Colorado, among the first states to be hit by the housing crisis, has been actively courting what it calls the New Energy Economy—wind and solar. The effort has paid off in jobs, and a big jump in our Business Friendliness category, finishing fifth this year, from number 12 in 2007.

Note that CNBC does not make any claim whatsoever about the effect of the so-called "New Energy Economy" on Colorado's success, other than to say that it has "paid off." Really? How much has it paid off? Where's the evidence that it has paid off? CNBC does not offer any evidence.

These energy schemes have been "successful" only because they have forcibly redirected money from elsewhere in the economy. As Environment Colorado (http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/energy-for-colorados-economy-creating-jobs-and-economic-growth-with-renewable-energy) reminds us, Colorado law requires an eventual 20 percent of energy to be produced in "alternative" ways. Obviously, this is more costly. If it weren't, it wouldn't have to be forced by legislation. This drives up people's energy bills. This results in less money available for people to spend with other businesses.

Sure, there are more jobs in the "New Energy" sector. But this comes at the expense of jobs elsewhere. As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/04/energy.html) wrote last year:

If the environmentalists and their supporting politicians actually took their own claims seriously, they would not stop at forcing a mere 20 percent "renewable" energy. They would require a full 100 percent. After all, if generating "more jobs" to produce energy is good, if that makes Colorado "open for business," then let's really open up for business by requiring that all energy used in Colorado must be "renewable." And why wait till 2020? Think of all the additional jobs that could be generated if we moved up the schedule, say to 2010. Just think of all the people who could be producing windmill blades!

Why, then, is Colorado's economy relatively healthy? Despite Democratic rule, Colorado still benefits by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, though the Democrats are currently trying to gut that. Colorado's Democrats have been less rabidly left-wing than Democrats elsewhere, due to the demographics in which they rule. They haven't been successful in pushing through their worst socialist schemes, such as government-controlled health care. Colorado attracts a lot of out-of-state talent because of our relatively business-friendly climate, the existence of established tech firms, good colleges (which are mostly privately funded, by the way), and beautiful climate and landscape. And, notably, despite Democratic efforts to hobble the oil and gas industry, Colorado and Wyoming have experienced booms in those industries. If you want to look at Colorado's economic success, oil has a lot more to do with it than windmills.

I don't know to what extent Colorado's "alternative" energy companies get national subsidies. If these subsidies are large, then Colorado is benefiting at the expense of people elsewhere. But I don't think letting politically-correct corporations steal from people in other states is necessarily something to crow about. Of course, these same corporate-welfare takers, along with leftist politicians, tax-funded bureaucrats, and environmentalist zealots provide the original sources for claims that robbing Peter to pay Paul somehow helps the economy.

Just another day at the mighty Denver Post.

Holy Lawsuits and MP3s

July 15, 2008

The AP has (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,379881,00.html) reported that, after a man asked God for "a real experience," he "he fell and hit his head while worshipping." So he's suing the church for $2.5 million. Why isn't he suing the Holy Spirit? You'd think that, after going to all the trouble of filling the guy with the Holy Spirit, God would take the additional step of making sure he didn't bump his head on the way to the floor. Of course, some of us may wonder whether people have the "real experience" that they expect to have, in which case I hardly think the church is liable, either. Of course, churches could, for example, issue bicycle helmets or the like before channeling God's spirit into worshippers. Lest you think that Holy Helmets are ridiculous, consider the next story...

(http://www.atheistnexus.org/) Atheist Nexus points to a Godlike new (http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=BLK-CN-12G-2GB&cm_mmc=geekmail-_-newarrivals_html-_-24MAY08-_-BLK-CN-12G-2GB) mp3 player, shaped like a cross. Christian music just isn't the same unless it's blaring through a cross-shaped player. "Show off your faith and listen to MP3 files with this 2 GB USB 'Cross Style' MP3 player," and all for only—you guessed it—$19.99. Because we all know that mp3 technology, and the computer revolution generally, came about through prayer and supernatural intervention.

Peikoff 19

July 15, 2008

Here I briefly summarize (http://peikoff.com/) Leonard Peikoff's recent (http://peikoff.com/MP3FILES/2008-06-30.019.mp3) podcast. My goal here is to raise interest in the podcasts and create textual markers, not provide a substitute for Peikoff's remarks. Peikoff also has a 20th and 21st podcast available.

Is it appropriate to purchase stock in tobacco companies, for instance? Peikoff replies that the harm of smoking depends on the context. Many items can be abused but are not inherently evil, including guns and baked goods. It's morally fine (but not mandatory) to invest in anything that is "legitimately legal" and possible to use rationally. Offhand, I had trouble thinking of a product that is impossible to use rationally. Even drugs that are currently illegal have legitimate medical uses. Of course, it would be wrong to promote particular groups known to be immoral, such as racist groups, but there the issue is not a product but the actions of particular people.

Does divorce harm children? Peikoff points out that, while divorce is inherently difficult for children, the level of difficulty all depends on how the particular parents handle it. A bad marriage is worse than a divorce for children.

Peikoff addresses a question regarding the metaphysical versus epistemological sense of the primary of existence.

What is an "Objectivist" person? Peikoff replies that generally it's much more important to evaluate the character of a person than whether the person is an Objectivist.

Is immortality possible? If it's true that something cannot fundamentally come into or go out of existence, then how can the soul cease to exist? Peikoff agrees with the principle that something cannot come from nothing or fade into nothing. I'll throw in this example: it's possible to burn a log, in which case the log ceases to exist, but the matter of the log is transformed into heat, light, smoke, and ash. Peikoff points out that "an action can cease to exist." Soul refers to our consciousness, a faculty that performs certain actions (specifically, the action of perceiving reality). Is it possible for the faculty of sight to go out of existence? Obviously, Peikoff points out; a person can go blind. The faculty of sight can be destroyed. Likewise, the faculty of consciousness can be destroyed.

Finally, Peikoff mentions his preferred translations for the Iliad and Antigone.

Coalition for Secular Government

July 16, 2008

Diana Hsieh has announced the formation of the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/) Coalition for Secular Government. It links to several interesting documents, hosts a (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/index.shtml) blog, and announces the following mission:

The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—including freedom of religion and conscience—requires a strict separation of church and state.

Consequently:

We oppose any laws or policies based on religious scripture or dogma, such as restrictions on abortion and government discrimination against homosexuals.

We oppose any government promotion of religion, such as the teaching of intelligent design in government schools and tax-funded "faith-based initiatives."

We oppose any special exemptions or privileges based on religion by government, such as exemptions for churches from the tax law applicable to other non-profits.

The only proper government is a secular government devoted to the protection of individual rights.

The Coalition for Secular Government seeks to educate the public about the necessary secular foundation of a free society, particularly the principles of individual rights and separation of church and state. ...

I look forward to working with the Coalition against Amendment 48 for the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/07/amendment-48.shtml) reasons stated by the blog.

Hillman Talks Energy

July 16, 2008

On Monday I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/07/denver-posts-crack-economic-team.html) criticized The Denver Post for its baseless assertion that "New Energy" is driving Colorado's economy. Mark Hillman also has (http://www.markhillman.com/2008/07/13/colorados-no-energy-economy/#more-251) pointed out the economic damage of energy controls:

As if paying $4-plus for gasoline isn't bad enough, some of Colorado's political leaders seem bound and determined to spread pain at the pump to the cost of heating our homes this winter—and for decades to come... Democrats try to freeze traditional energy sources to make alternative energy economically competitive.

Hillman criticizes Senator Ken Salazar for standing in the way of oil-shale production. Unfortunately, Hillman does not specify how Salazar is doing this. Salazar (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9890718) praises a "research and development program that Congress created in 2005"; if that means subsidies, then such federal assistance is wrong. Salazar also fears "the Bureau of Land Management is trying to organize a fire sale of commercial oil shale leases on public land." Of course the central problem here is that the federal government has nationalized vast tracks of land. Short of the ideal policy of privatizing all of this land, the federal policy should be to lease land (though any lease set would be arbitrary for this socialized land) to whomever can independently finance operations. Salazar believes, "The governors of Wyoming and Colorado, communities and editorial boards across the West agree that the administration's headlong rush is a terrible idea." But what they think should make absolutely no difference. They are not the ones putting up the investment money or doing any of the work.

Hillman also blasts Congressman Mark Udall, who is currently trying to join the Senate, for scapegoating "price-gouging," conflating reasonable tax credits with subsidies, and mandating different ethanol.

Finally, Hillman notes, "Udall and Salazar team up with Gov. Bill Ritter to stonewall against responsible energy development on the Roan Plateau. Meanwhile, Ritter still expects the energy industry to provide more tax revenue."

The Democrats impose controls and taxes on economical energy and mandates and subsidies for uneconomical energy. Then The Denver Post pretends that such policies are the "biggest" reason for Colorado's relative economic success, rather than an impediment to economic growth.

Perkins vs. D'Souza: Gaps

July 17, 2008

In his (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/06/why-new-atheists-cant-even-beat-dsouza.shtml) third essay criticizing Dinesh D'Souza, Greg Perkins discusses the "God of the gaps."

D'Souza claims that, because science cannot fully explain the history of the universe, the nature of physical laws, and human morality, therefore "the God hypothesis seems unavoidable."

Perkins sensibly replies:

If only his opponents had the philosophical foundation to resist all those temptations for distraction in debate. In response to this sort of thing, they should be asking a simple question to expose a pervasive methodological problem in religious thought: Since when did not knowing the answer to a puzzle entitle us to go and make one up?

In fact, these sorts of arbitrarily asserted "explanations" pulled out of thin air should be simply dismissed out of hand—a principle long recognized in logic and law. When someone brings a baseless charge before a court, it is to be dismissed as beneath consideration (and could even earn penalties for wasting the court's time). Likewise, when someone brings a baseless idea before a rational mind, it should be simply dismissed as beneath consideration. And D'Souza consistently relies on the logical fallacy of the "argument from ignorance," taking peoples' lack of knowledge around this and that as evidence in support of "the God hypothesis."

Perkins reminds us that various other natural events once were attributed to supernatural forces, including lightning, earthquakes, and disease.

Perkins also notes that D'Souza's appeal to faith rests on the knowledge of science.

After all, you can't wonder about the design of the inner workings of the cell until you find out there are cells and that they contain marvelous machinery, and you can't explore the delicate interplay of cosmological constants until you have discovered those constants in the first place.

Science depends upon our observations of reality governed by natural law. D'Souza pretends that the products of science point to a super-reality governed by God.

Peikoff 20 and 21

July 17, 2008

Here I catch up on my brief summaries of Leonard Peikoff's podcasts.

(http://peikoff.clublogic.org/podcast/audio/2008-07-07.020.mp3) Peikoff 20

Should a man reveal intense romantic interest in a woman? Peikoff replies that it depends on context; it's "all a question of detail." Under the appropriate circumstances, yes, it's appropriate to communicate passion. He talks a bit about those circumstances.

What is the basis for laws against self-incrimination? Here Peikoff surprised me a bit. My first thoughts went to the abuses inherent in forcing people to testify against themselves. But Peikoff makes a more fundamental argument. He explains that we properly support a just government to protect our own lives and property. But when the government is trying to convict a person of a serious crime, whether rightly or wrongly, the egoistic justification for joining the government is to that extent broken. Egoism dictates that, while people may be punished for lying under oath, they cannot properly be forced to incriminate themselves.

Next, Peikoff discusses the cynicism often behind the phrase, "drinking the kool-aid."

What about the marriage of minors? Peikoff replies that marriage is a contract, and government can't sanction a contract with a minor. I basically agree, but I add that people do mature at different ages. I believe that a court should be able to grant adult status to a responsible 17-year-old, if petitioned. Should a pregnant 15-year-old be able to marry the father? Colorado Statute 14-2-109.5 sets an age limit for common-law marriage at 18. Colorado law provides for marriage under 18 with parental approval, and this strikes me as reasonable:

14-2-106. License to marry.

(1) (a) ...[T]he county clerk shall issue a license to marry and a marriage certificate form upon being furnished:

(I) Satisfactory proof that each party to the marriage will have attained the age of eighteen years at the time the marriage license becomes effective; or, if over the age of sixteen years but has not attained the age of eighteen years, has the consent of both parents or guardian or, if the parents are not living together, the parent who has legal custody or decision-making responsibility concerning such matters or with whom the child is living or judicial approval, as provided in section 14-2-108; or, if under the age of sixteen years, has both the consent to the marriage of both parents or guardian or, if the parents are not living together, the parent who has legal custody or decision-making responsibility concerning such matters or with whom the child is living and judicial approval, as provided in section 14-2-108...

Obviously, just because marriage under the age of 18 is allowed doesn't mean it's usually a good idea.

What are the limits to the right of self-defense? Peikoff sensibly answers that things like nuclear weapons, private armies, and biological agents properly are restricted, though he adds that a private force can be appropriate depending on one's property holdings and risks. (I imagine that a business operating in a dangerous part of the world would need a private force, for example.) However, Peikoff seems not to have finely considered the nature of guns. He suggested than an Uzi may be prohibited, but that's rather arbitrary. A reasonable standard is that, if a weapon is inherently used discriminately—i.e., to stop a particular threatening person—it should be allowed for self-defense. Weapons that cannot be used in a domestic defensive situation without inherently endangering third parties should be restricted. This standard easily differentiates guns from tanks and nuclear bombs (and it also comports with the historical understanding of "arms.")

Finally, Peikoff discusses some of the fiction he likes.

(http://peikoff.clublogic.org/podcast/audio/2008-07-14.021.mp3) Peikoff 21

Should government intervene in the economy to protect the environment? Peikoff answers no, except when particular property rights are violated by a particular party. However, he notes, first-in-time rights apply; if somebody builds a home next to an established factory, the homeowner can't properly sue the factory for air pollution. One "cannot launch a claim against industrial civilization as such."

Is it possible to experience love without physical attraction? I won't try to summarize Peikoff's interesting remarks on the matter, as they're both subtle and far afield from the main purpose of this blog.

Can reading Ayn Rand become escapist? Peikoff says that reading great literature for inspiration is much different than a "refusal to face reality."

Finally, when is it immoral to help a stranger? We are "right to value human life," Peikoff notes, so obviously we should help strangers in an emergency when doing so risks no substantial values. However, if our choice is between saving a stranger and saving one's spouse, the proper choice is equally obvious. He discusses a few other scenarios.

Word has it that Peikoff is wrapping up work on his book on DIM, or "disintegration, integration, and misintegration," as an explanation for the basic flows of human history. I expect the book's publication to be a watershed event.

The Faith-Based Welfare Debate

July 18, 2008

The New York Times has (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02obama.html) reviewed the presidential debate over faith-based welfare ((http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/07/gop-platform.shtml) via Politics Without God).

On one side of the debate, Obama fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be able to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion:

Mr. Obama's position that religious organizations would not be able to consider religion in their hiring for such programs would constitute a deal-breaker for many evangelicals, said several evangelical leaders, who represent a political constituency Mr. Obama has been trying to court.

"For those of who us who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions, this is a fundamental right," said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. "He's rolling back the Bush protections. That's extremely disappointing."

You mean if churches line up for handouts of forcibly transfered wealth, they have to jump through political hoops? Who'd have imagined?

Churches do not have a "fundamental right" to spend tax dollars free of political oversight. However, individuals do have a fundamental right not to finance religious organizations as a matter of freedom of conscience and property rights.

On the other side of the debate, McCain fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be subject to national hiring guidelines: "A McCain campaign spokesman, Brian Rogers, said Mr. McCain 'disagrees with Senator Obama that hiring at faith-based groups should be subject to government oversight.'"

Some readers might have noticed that both sides of the debate are saying very nearly the same thing.

The only person quoted by the article articulating the alternative of liberty is the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who told the Times, "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

Amen, brother.

Comment by Neil Parille: I don't support faith-based welfare, for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, it seems relatively minor. The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on secular (and leftist) public schools (and colleges and universities). Global warming, the alleged evils of capitalism and the like are taught every day. Taxpayers who don't agree with the leftism and secularism are forced to support it. This is a much greater violation of individual rights than the government spending a few bucks on a church-run soup kitchen.

Comment by Clay: It staggers the mind that these people can put forward the lie that this money will not be spent on proselytizing. Basically these organizations divert whatever money that they would have spent on these programs and use that money to try to convert people and this is somehow supposed to be ok. The level of willful ignorance necessary for the Supreme Court to come down with a ruling saying that this is legal is truly despicable.

Republicans Alienate Western Voters

July 18, 2008

As Ryan Sager has pointed out, the Interior West isn't as friendly toward faith-based politics. That goes a long way toward explaining Republican losses in Colorado. Are Republicans listening? (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/07/gop-platform.shtml) Consider:

"It is impossible to protect our religious liberty as well as all of our individual rights unless we endorse the strict separation of church and state. ... I have been a Republican for my entire voting life, but cannot endorse the GOP currently because of it's explicit endorsement of religion in government."

"As a Republican since 1976, I am disillusioned, largely because of the party's abandonment of individual liberty in favor of religion in politics."

"My family has always voted Republican. The Party has changed in recent years. The important issue: the Republican Party must stand for strict separation of church and state. But the Party has now allied itself with the religious right, with such pet issues as anti-stem-cell research, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage."

"The Republican Party must promote the strict separation of church and state. I used to support the Republican Party because I believe in individual rights, free markets, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Republican Party alliance with the religious right on 'social issues' like stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage has turned off many former supporters such as myself."

"15 years ago, the GOP attracted me for its commitment to free markets and fiscal responsibility, even if only half-hearted. Today, the GOP has lost my vote due to its dangerous entanglement with evangelical Christianity."

I used to display a Bush (the First) yard sign in the window of the truck I drove. Since then, I've voted for Kerry. I intend to vote for Democrat Mark Udall for U.S. Senate. I refuse to vote for McCain. Just as soon as Republican candidates explicitly endorse the separation of church and state—and mean it—I will again consider voting for them.

South Dakota Raises Abortion Hurdles

July 20, 2008

As the Associated Press (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/27/america/NA-GEN-US-Abortion-Lawsuit.php) reports, a South Dakota law may legally be enforced requiring doctors to tell woman that an abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." The AP elsewhere (http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/07/17/news/top/doc487fb7d614215013755136.txt) notes that the state's attorney general now plans to enforce the law. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier still must issue a ruling on the law; the debate was whether it could be enforced while under challenge.

What I take to be the (http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=34-23A-10.1&Type=Statute) relevant statute is reproduced below.

Obviously the law is intended to create onerous restrictions on abortion and come between doctors and their patients. The law micromanages doctors and violates their rights of contract and expression. The law also treats women as mindless dolts who must be parented by the state if they are to make "correct" decisions. Obviously the law is biased toward forcing doctors to provide propaganda against abortion, outside the context of the overall best decision for the woman, that presumably could generate endless litigation against doctors who provide the "wrong" sort of information.

Most importantly, the law deceptively claims that a fetus is "a... living human being" in the sense of being a person. The law thus relies on a gross equivocation between "human" in the sense of containing human DNA, as every cell in our bodies do, and "human" in the sense of being a physically separate and independent human person, which a fetus most certainly is not.

34-23A-10.1. (Delay in implementation or finding of unconstitutionality, see note at end of section) Voluntary and informed consent required--Medical emergency exception--Information provided. No abortion may be performed unless the physician first obtains a voluntary and informed written consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the physician intends to perform the abortion, unless the physician determines that obtaining an informed consent is impossible due to a medical emergency and further determines that delaying in performing the procedure until an informed consent can be obtained from the pregnant woman or her next of kin in accordance with chapter 34- 12C is impossible due to the medical emergency, which determinations shall then be documented in the medical records of the patient. A consent to an abortion is not voluntary and informed, unless, in addition to any other information that must be disclosed under the common law doctrine, the physician provides that pregnant woman with the following information:
(1) A statement in writing providing the following information:
(a) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion;
(b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
(c) That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
(d) That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
(e) A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including:
(i) Depression and related psychological distress;
(ii) Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;
(iii) A statement setting forth an accurate rate of deaths due to abortions, including all deaths in which the abortion procedure was a substantial contributing factor;
(iv) All other known medical risks to the physical health of the woman, including the risk of infection, hemorrhage, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and infertility;
(f) The probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed, and a scientifically accurate statement describing the development of the unborn child at that age; and
(g) The statistically significant medical risks associated with carrying her child to term compared to undergoing an induced abortion.
The disclosures set forth above shall be provided to the pregnant woman in writing and in person no later than two hours before the procedure is to be performed. The physician shall ensure that the pregnant woman signs each page of the written disclosure with the certification that she has read and understands all of the disclosures, prior to the patient signing a consent for the procedure. If the pregnant woman asks for a clarification or explanation of any particular disclosure, or asks any other question about a matter of significance to her, the explanation or answer shall be made in writing and be given to the pregnant woman before signing a consent for the procedure and shall be made part of the permanent medical record of the patient;
(2) A statement by telephone or in person, by the physician who is to perform the abortion, or by the referring physician, or by an agent of both, at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, providing the following information:
(a) That medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and
neonatal care;
(b) That the father of the unborn child is legally responsible to provide financial support for her child following birth, and that this legal obligation of the father exists in all instances, even in instances in which the father has offered to pay for the abortion;
(c) The name, address, and telephone number of a pregnancy help center in reasonable proximity of the abortion facility where the abortion will be performed; and
(d) That she has a right to review all of the material and information described in § 34- 23A-1, §§ 34-23A-1.2 to 34-23A-1.7, inclusive, § 34-23A-10.1, and § 34-23A- 10.3, as well as the printed materials described in § 34-23A-10.3, and the website described in § 34-23A-10.4. The physician or the physician's agent shall inform the pregnant woman, orally or in writing, that the materials have been provided by the State of South Dakota at no charge to the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman indicates, at any time, that she wants to review any of the materials described, such disclosures shall be either given to her at least twenty-four hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least seventy-two hours before the abortion by certified mail, restricted delivery to addressee, which means the postal employee can only deliver the mail to the addressee;
Prior to the pregnant woman signing a consent to the abortion, she shall sign a written statement that indicates that the requirements of this section have been complied with. Prior to the performance of the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion shall receive a copy of the written disclosure documents required by this section, and shall certify in writing that all of the information described in those subdivisions has been provided to the pregnant woman, that the physician is, to the best of his or her ability, satisfied that the pregnant woman has read the materials which are required to be disclosed, and that the physician believes she understands the information imparted. (SL 2005, ch 186, §§ 10 and 11 provide: "Section 10. If any court of law enjoins, suspends, or delays the implementation of the provisions of section 7 of this Act, the provisions of § 34-23A-10.1, as of June 30, 2005, are effective during such injunction, suspension, or delayed implementation." "Section 11. If any court of law finds any provisions of section 7 of this Act to be unconstitutional, the other provisions of section 7 are severable. If any court of law finds the provisions of section 7 of this Act to be entirely or substantially unconstitutional, the provisions of § 34-23A-10.1, as of June 30, 2005, are immediately reeffective.")
Source: SL 1980, ch 245, § 1; SL 1993, ch 249, § 4; SL 2003, ch 185, § 2; SL 2005, ch 186, § 7.

Dark Knight Shines

July 20, 2008

I loved (http://thedarkknight.warnerbros.com/) Dark Knight, the latest Batman film. The acting is superb—I already loved Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, MIchael Cane, and Morgan Freeman, and they certainly live up to expectations here.

Ledger's performance is everything the hype suggests. However, I found him to be frightening not because he played it "over the top," as some critics have alleged, but because he is at times so chillingly calm. I confess to mentally leaving the movie for a moment in sadness as the Joker tells Batman, "We could do this forever." No, they can't.

I was not overwhelmed by Maggie Gyllenhaal, whom I generally like, but who couldn't seem to spark much excitement here. I just couldn't buy a romantic link between her and either of the two men in her life (Bale's Bruce Wayne or Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent).

This is a movie of serious ideas as well as superbly crafted action, and I like that. Americans, it seems, hunger for intellectual material, so long as it's part of an interesting and heroic story. Sadly, some of the ideas the film presents are terrible.

Spoiler Alert: From this point on, I'll be discussing details of the film's plot that you probably won't want to read until after you see the film.

There are three main thematic elements to the film. The first may be summarized, "Don't negotiate with terrorists." The Joker is essentially an urban terrorist, motivated not by some religious cause but by raw nihilism. He hates societal order, hates good people planning their lives, hates the good-faith pursuit of values. His goal is to destroy values, destroy peace, and destroy the best people. So the film creates a very compelling villain.

Much of the film involves the Joker unleashing mayhem in order to blackmail Batman into turning himself in to the authorities and removing himself from the action. For a time, Wayne considers doing so. But Dent, the District Attorney, refuses to allow Batman to give in to the Joker, and turns himself in as Batman instead.

Another significant part of the non-capitulation theme rests with an employee of Wayne's who has discovered the secret identity of his boss. He threatens to out Wayne—until the Joker also threatens violence unless somebody kills him. Then the employee learns quickly why it's a bad idea to play games with terrorists and give in to demands. This first thematic element is positive and a huge reason why the film succeeds.

The second element is closely related to the first. Will people remain decent when pressured by a violent madman? The key sequence involves two ferries, one filled with good people of the city, another with criminals. The Joker loads both boats with explosives and gives each boat a detonator to the other boat. If one boat doesn't blow up the other by a set time, the Joker will blow up both boats.

This is obviously a set up, but it plays well, and the dramatic suspense is palpable. This sequence involves a truly great moment aboard the criminal ferry. In many emergency contexts, I would choose to save the lives of decent people over criminals. However, in the context of the film, the people are aware that the Joker gets a special thrill out of manipulating people, and they also know that Batman as well as the authorities are on the case. So I think that the actions the people take—not to blow each other up—are defensible on grounds of not negotiating with terrorists. As others have noticed, this sequence has a lot to do with game theory in economics.

The third main thematic element is the fall of Dent from a respected District Attorney to villain, and the response of Batman to this. The fall of Dent from criminal-chasing hero to embittered villain is not set up well enough be be plausible. The only way such a fall would be possible is if Dent had dramatic personal problems that he'd been hiding. There is a hint of previous trouble: he was once known among police as "Two-Face Harvey." He goes from making his own luck to thinking the world is fundamentally unfair and that such a condition excuses his vindictive violence. I knew the turn was coming, so I wasn't too upset about it. Nevertheless, the mostly inexplicable turn of a hero into a villain is deeply unsatisfying and morally distressing.

Even worse, though, is Batman's reaction to Dent's fall. Batman wants to preserve the people's faith in a hero, so he decides to take the wrap for Dent's crimes. That's horrible, horrible, horrible. Deception can never be the basis of a healthy social reaction. Batman's action is profoundly unjust, not only to himself, but to Dent (who deserves condemnation for his fall), and, more importantly, to the people he claims to defend. Assuming that people must be deceived if they are to do the right thing is fundamentally disrespectful of those people.

I got the idea that the film was trying hard to make Batman a particularly "dark" knight. We can't have him seem too heroic! Given that despicable goal, dinging Batman for crimes he didn't commit is the least-bad way of mucking up his character.

As much as I hate Batman the Liar, the ending does not ruin the film for me. The dominant theme of standing up to villains saves it. That's good, because there's far too much talent here to waste.

Comment: "So I think that the actions the people take—not to blow each other up—are defensible on grounds of not negotiating with terrorists." Ari, I agree that this would have been the most moral course of action. But this was not the case. Unfortunately, I think you have ascribed your interpretation to the people's actions, which actually is not warranted. Their act was not of moral defiance against the terrorist but of upholding the "virtue" indicated by the statement: "I'd rather die as an act of self-sacrifice and let the other person live." However, what this sentiment actually would lead to in this particular situation is this: "I'd rather die and bring everyone else down with me." Notice that on the convicts boat, the virtue of self-destruction was thrust upon everyone by the fact that the detonator was thrown out of the boat. Thus, the context was altered to remove any hint of a possibility that a choice against self-sacrifice might be made. Certainly, I'm not saying that they should have blown each other up. What I'm saying is, they acted in a way that signified resignation from life, acceptance of death, and self-sacrifice as a virtue. Alternatively, I would have used your interpretation of defiance against the terrorist by showing that BOTH GROUPS of people throw their detonators out of their boats--willfully and volitionally, after a discussion of the philosophical motive underlying this action, namely, "We'd rather not dance to the whims of a terrorist and thus die, not because we value self-sacrifice, but because we despise the life of a prisoner." This would have been the most moral course of action. You could argue that the morality actually portrayed in the movie is ambiguous, which is what I stated in my blog post as well. Although, my stance is that the morality projected was the idealization of death and self-sacrifice as a moral virtue.

Comment by Ari: First, the theme, "don't negotiate with terrorists," is firmly and overtly established in the movie. So I am not merely ascribing my "interpretation to the people's actions;" I am interpreting the scene in light of the film's own explicit theme. The fact that a convict throws his boat's detonator out of the window does not indicate a "virtue of self-destruction." It indicates that the convict thought the prison guards might blow up the boat full of innocent people, and he wanted to put an end to that possibility.

D'Souza on Divine Intervention

July 21, 2008

Dinesh D'Souza makes two related claims in his (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/21/an_absentee_god) latest article. First, even though, as Christopher Hitchens noted, the Judeo-Christian God has been around only for a few thousand years of mankind's existence, this God has been around for 98 percent of the lives of human beings. Second, the fact that people have progressed so much since then only proves that God is real. Here's what D'Souza has to say on this second point:

Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels and agriculture and art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.

So how did Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this but no one has offered a persuasive account. ...

Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.

D'Souza's arguments often are hyper-rationalistic, and his latest is no exception. It has no grounding whatsoever in reality, and it ignores obvious conflicting evidence and more plausible explanations.

First, while the Judeo-Christian God is fairly young, that God hardly represented the founding of religion. Instead, primitive superstitions held back mankind for tens of thousands of years. The God of the Jews basically evolved from regional polytheism, then merged with Platonic philosophy to give us Christianity. So far as cultural advances go, D'Souza is crediting the Judeo-Christian God for the hard intellectual work of the Greeks, starting with Thales at about 600 BC.

Second, we do not need any supernatural explanation for the success of mankind. In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond explains that, around 10,000 years ago, people in the Middle East started to domesticate plants and animals in a serious way, which obviously has had a great deal to do with human expansion. As far as the population explosion goes, that didn't happen in a big way until the Industrial Revolution, which was an extension of the Enlightenment, which championed human reason and for the first time since the Christianization of Rome allowed a serious break with religion.

Third, as Greg Perkins (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/06/why-new-atheists-cant-even-beat-dsouza.shtml) explains, even if we didn't know these facts of history, and to the extent that we don't know all of the facts, D'Souza is unjustified in pulling supernaturalism from the hat. Perkins asks, "Since when did not knowing the answer to a puzzle entitle us to go and make one up?"

Fourth, D'Souza misidentifies cause and effect. Is a more sophisticated God the cause of a more sophisticated society, or the consequence of it? Obviously, as people gain the ability to not starve to death, they are able to fund the priestly classes.

What's remarkable to me is how many people seem to find D'Souza's arguments persuasive. The only people such arguments appeal to are detached-from-reality rationalists and those already devoted to their conclusion.

How Obama Lost Another Vote

July 21, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080721/COLUMNISTS/721827766/1021&parentprofile=1062) was published by Grand Junction's Free Press on July 21, 2008.

How Obama lost another vote

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We write as a father-son team. We almost always agree about fundamental issues, yet sometimes we look askew at each others' strategies.

For example, last month Ari (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/open-letter-to-senators-mccain-and.html) wrote on his blog (FreeColorado.com for June 6), "I deem that McCain is the worst evil in the race, and therefore I've decided to mark my ballot for Obama as the strongest possible vote against McCain." Such a position is sacrilege to much of the family.

What's so bad about McCain? Ari's post reviews three main flaws. McCain snubbed the First Amendment with his campaign censorship law, saying he wants to violate our "quote, First Amendment rights" for his version of "clean government." We wouldn't want politics mucked up with all that liberty.

He pushes for faith-based politics and declares his support for "ending abortion." And he humbly requests that you "sacrifice your life" to the state. (Where this involves military conflict, we're reminded of Patton's advice about which side we should get to sacrifice their lives.)

We agree about McCain's flaws. We may disagree about what to do about them, but we now agree that voting for Obama is not the answer. Why the change? In brief, Obama proposes new political controls over our lives and the economy at an astounding pace.

Obama wants socialized medicine, more wage controls, more corporate and personal welfare, higher taxes, and more energy restrictions, to mention just a few highlights. How does he compare with McCain on the issues of speech, faith-based politics, and sacrifice to the nation?

Obama didn't vote on the McCain-Feingold campaign censorship law, because the law passed in 2002, while Obama didn't take his Senate seat till 2005. We were hopeful about a (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html) headline from Broadcasting & Cable claiming that Obama "does not support" the Fairness Doctrine, which is a euphemism for censoring radio.

However, Obama did not take a principled stand for free speech; instead, his spokesperson said that the proposal was a "distraction" from imposing other controls such as "media-ownership caps." In other words, Obama believes the national government should be able to forcibly prohibit some people from owning certain media outlets.

Both McCain and Obama believe that the phrase "Congress shall make no law" actually means "Congress shall make a law" imposing speech controls.

Obama had nothing but praise for President Bush's national faith-based welfare, which forces you to hand over some of your money to religious groups.

Obama promised that "federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs." However, not only is it immoral to force people who disagree with a particular religion to fund practitioners of that religion, but it is impossible for explicitly religious groups to spend tax dollars in a strictly secular way. The national government has no business forcibly redistributing people's money to any religious outfit.

The First Amendment also states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." While faith-based welfare does not sanction a single creed, it forcibly transfers funds to particular religious groups in violation of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

If you're a Christian, you shouldn't be forced to fund a Muslim organization, and vice versa. If you're an atheist or "other," you shouldn't be forced to fund either. And churches shouldn't bow to Caesar to stick their noses into the government trough.

What about the issue of sacrificial service? When Obama came through Colorado earlier this month, he outlined his plan for forcing students to serve politician-approved goals. The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/03/obama-students-should-serve/) reports that Obama wants to make "federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs." In other words, Obama first wants to take your money by force, then blackmail your local school district with your money to force students to take time away from their studies, work, and other interests to "serve" whatever it is Obama deems appropriate.

And we always thought the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited involuntary servitude. True enough, people can pull their children out of government schools in protest, which means that they merely have to perform involuntary servitude to fund the school they're not using.

McCain and Obama are not merely bad candidates. Their policies are profoundly evil, and they violate the principles of liberty on which this nation was founded. They also violate at least the spirit, and we believe the letter, of the Constitution.

So whom are we voting for this year? We doubt that any of our regular readers need some newspaper columnists to tell them how to vote. We'll probably vote differently, anyway.

However, Ari feels free to mention that he's seriously considering writing in John Galt for president. With so many political "leaders" blaming liberty for the problems caused by political controls, and promising as the answer more severe controls, this election is starting to feel a lot like the world of Atlas Shrugged.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: I have been following many of your blog posts with interest. I have heard a national radio pundit say that the intermountian west "gets it." I think that this column is one reason why he had that impression. I have re-read Atlas Shrugged this summer, and it is far more frightening now than when I read it in the "80's. I don't know who I am voting for, but I do know that I will not break my record of never having voted for a major-party candidate in my life. You are right. The policies promoted on both sides are profoundly evil. Evil is destructive. It may not mean much, but I do not wish to vote for destructive ends.

Comment by Mitch: Voting for John Galt may satisfy your Objectivist belief system, but, in the scheme of things, does nothing. For starters, write-in votes are never counted by any State Boards of Elections. You do not vote for the person—you vote for electors. No electors, no votes. Secondly, politics, contrary to the fantasies of The Lightworker's acolytes, is not about creating the ideal society. It is about "the possible." One of these men is going to be the president, and while I agree both represent evil philosophies, voters are unfortunately in the position of having to choose the lesser of evils. So, the questions is—who will limit the State's intrusion into your life? As an Arizonan, I reluctantly suggest it will be McCain, but I do believe this to be true. A Federal government under the control of Pelosi (D-Beijing), Reid (D-Havana), and His Holiness, The One (PBUH) is a far more dangerous state of affairs than divided government. Voting for Galt is pure mental masturbation. Rand would not approve. You might as well stay home, and not vote.

Comment by Ari: Obviously, writing in a candidate is the same as voting for "none of the above." The point of my mentioning John Galt is not that his name will be counted, but that it makes for a useful symbol of the conundrum of this election. This election is about a lot more than the presidential race. Colorado faces important votes for Senate, the House, state-level offices, and ballot measures. I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that Rand would vote for either candidate this year. Clearly she would have trouble voting for either man; whether she would vote against one as the worse evil is beyond me.

Comment by Mitch: "The point of my mentioning John Galt is not that his name will be counted, but that it makes for a useful symbol. . ." I understand, however, I would submit it's only a useful symbol if it's reported by the Board of Elections to the media, and given that an "upset" by McCain, or a coronation of His Holiness, will be the front page story for days and weeks to come, a novelty story about a vote for John Galt is unlikely to see anything in the Denver Post, or anywhere else. "This election is about a lot more than the presidential race." I face the same issues in AZ. Referenda, a constitutional amendment, local races, are important. "I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that Rand would vote for either candidate. . ." Perhaps you're right. Perhaps she would counsel you to go to the Gulch. After all, it "is" in Colorado. :)

Comment by Ari: Mitch, you're missing the point. My comments about John Galt were published in a Colorado newspaper—Grand Junction's Free Press, in the article reproduced above. Then I reproduced the article on my web page. I have made it a point of discussion. This has nothing to do with "upsetting" McCain; I switched my vote from Obama to neither. Is this going to become a front-cover story for The Denver Post? Obviously not. Is this idea going to sweep the world? No. Do I expect many people to write in John Galt? No. But if even a few people pick up Atlas Shrugged because they want to better-understand what's going on in the world around us, then I've accomplished my goal.

Perkins vs. D'Souza: Morality

July 23, 2008

In his (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/06/why-new-atheists-cant-even-beat-dsouza_09.shtml?nc) fourth essay criticizing Dinesh D'Souza, Greg Perkins notes that D'Souza accuses atheists of rebelling against moral rules. After summarizing why that's not the case for atheists who know what they're talking about, Perkins adds:

[T]he religionists are themselves guilty of the sin of moral subjectivism. The essence of subjectivism is acting on whim—wishing, assuming, feeling, or declaring that facts will align themselves with thoughts and lives. Of course, this gets it exactly backwards: thoughts and lives must align themselves with the facts because facts are absolutes to be discovered, not declared. Merely hoping or asserting something is good doesn't make it so, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the whim of a lone subjectivist deciding what is good or bad, the whim of an entire civilization voting on it, or the whim of a "supernatural" mind decreeing it. So the religious who claim to have an absolute morality are really only subjectivists of a supernatural stripe. The trouble for them is that their sort of subjectivism is just as false as any other: God telling Abraham that it is good to slay his innocent son Isaac doesn't make it good. His ordering the enslavement of entire peoples in the Old Testament doesn't make that good.

While Perkins only hints at the full case behind his arguments, he starts down the right track and offers a useful reading list.

There is a point that Perkins doesn't make: D'Souza is psychologizing. He is postulating some psychological rebellion that, in most cases, simply does not exist. (Perkins correctly claims that many atheists resort to the theory of subjectivism, but that's a very different charge.) Thus, D'Souza's argument on this point is not only wrong but ad hominem.

TaxTracks Blows Budget—Surprise, Surprise

July 23, 2008

Kevin Flynn of the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/18/fastracks-budget-off-rails/) reports:

RTD conceded Friday that it cannot deliver the FasTracks program as promised to voters four years ago.

The program, originally budgeted at $4.7 billion when voters approved a sales tax to support it, rose to $6.1 billion last year and is poised for a substantial increase next month during budget talks with the elected board. ...

The program has been clobbered from two sides, with huge increases in the cost of construction materials and fuel, and a slowdown in the economy that has cut into the revenue RTD expected from the sales tax that underpins the financing.

Let's go back to basics. There is absolutely no reason for rail to be tax-subsidized at all. If rail lines offer a real economic benefit, then people will gladly pay sufficient fares to keep them in business. Rail lines easily can exclude non-payers, so that objection is gone. If the concern is the small fraction of poor riders, then a market rail service is perfectly free to price discriminate, say by offering discounted passes to the poor. Especially for non-peak travel, such price discrimination would add to the rail's revenues, as most costs are fixed. Alternately, those who wish to voluntarily subsidize transportation for the poor are perfectly free to do so. By relying on a sales tax, rail forcibly transfers money away from some poor people to some rich people, and that's wrong even according to egalitarianism.

Atop those economic reasons rests the simple fact that it is morally wrong to force people who don't use rail to subsidize those who do. People have the moral right to control their own income, to decide for themselves whether to fund rail, whether to use it, whether to invest in it, and whether to subsidize other people's transportation.

Now TaxTracks has run into the problem that the sales tax, set as a percentage of sales in the region, is subject to economic downturns. Notably, a real loan is not. A real loan is what a marketized RTD should have obtained. A real loan is what RTD could have paid off with paying users, if its services actually are demanded. RTD is complaining also about increased costs, but at the same time, presumably, more people are riding rail to avoid the gas pump.

On a free market, perhaps RTD still would have had to cut back or restructure with changing economic conditions. But, on a free market, RTD would not have made promises to taxpayers that it cannot keep.

Comment by Allen: I'd be curious to see what the sales tax collections are versus RTD's projections. Especially after learning they used the CPI and not a construction inflation index as part of their projections.

Udall Announces WindCar 3000

July 24, 2008

MEDIA RELEASE—July 24, 2008

UDALL ANNOUNCES WINDCAR 3000

Boulder, CO—Today U.S. Senate Candidate Mark Udall announced his solution to high gas prices: the WindCar 3000, an electric car powered by a giant windmill atop the roof that can also serve to catch favorable winds.

"The WindCar 3000 offers a practical alternative to Colorado's addiction to oil," Udall said."With gas prices around $4 per gallon, now is not the time drill or produce more oil in the U.S. Now is the time for forward-thinking individuals to adopt exciting new technologies and free us from oil."

The WindCar 3000 powers itself with free, renewable wind energy captured by a towering, state-of-the-art windmill attached to the roof of the car. When the car is in motion, the windmill blades can be set in place to anchor the WindNet, a large sail that can convert existing winds to mobile force.

"This revolutionary system, dubbed the Free Atop-Roof Coupling Energizer, makes use of free wind energy whether the car is sitting in the gusty driveway or sailing down the road. The system is especially effective when commutes are coordinated with prevailing winds. All aboard the New Energy Economy!" Udall said.

Udall announced a five-year plan to research, develop, and construct the WindCar 3000, which he expects to go into production no later than 2015. He said his first act as Senator will be to pass a special tax on oil and oil-powered cars to fund the project.

"Even though the price currently is estimated at $126,320 per car, we fully expect that price to come down as our hand-selected scientists find new ways to conserve energy. For example, with even lighter weight materials, the car would require less power, and on a low-wind day two people could even carry the car with specially-installed handles," Udall said.

The WindCar 3000 is expected to be able to travel at least 34 miles after only 20 hours of energizing in a high-wind area. With prevailing winds, the vehicle could travel much farther.

Udall sharply criticized his critics, saying, "Contrary to criticisms by oil-and-gas executives, high gas prices have nothing to do with my fellow environmentalists' efforts to shut down all energy production in the United States (including nuclear generators); the fault rests solely with those who produce the oil that powers our 20th Century-technology cars. And don't think for a second that it's my fault that corn gas actually harms the environment while simultaneously subjecting third-world populations to starvation and rewarding corporate special-interests. The WindCar 3000 is based on entirely new technology, and its development will be overseen by the top minds in the nation."

Udall concluded, "Obviously, this is a parody. In fact, I didn't actually make any of these statements, and this release is entirely made up. My real energy policy is very serious business indeed."

Republicans Catch Up

July 24, 2008

In two related stories, the Rocky Mountain News reports that John McCain and Bob Schaffer have caught up with Barack Obama and Mark Udall.

The (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/24/mccain-takes-lead-colorado-poll-shows/) first story reveals that McCain has gone from a 49-44 deficit to a 46-44 edge, according to Quinnipiac University. The big news is that Obama has dropped by 5 percent, well beyond the margin of error. This suggests that, while people still don't like McCain much, they're increasingly turned off my Obama.

The article cites gas prices. Clearly it had more to do with (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/07/how-obama-lost-another-vote.html) the article by my dad and me beating up Obama (just kidding). But I do think the turn has to do with more than just gas.

The (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/24/poll-shows-udall-schaffer-dead-heat/) second article notes that, while Udall still leads in a Rasmussen poll by 4 percent, Quinnipiac shows them tied with 44 percent each.

Udall's spokesperson Tara Trujillo told the News, "Udall has spent 12 years working to make Colorado the nation's leader in renewable energy development, while his opponent, Bob Schaffer, has been working for the oil and gas industry that is making record-breaking profits while Coloradans pay more than four bucks for a gallon of gas." That's the comment that inspired me to (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/07/udall-announces-windcar-3000.html) make a bit of fun of Udall. I think that at some level many people understand that, when environmentalists forcibly prevent energy companies from producing energy, that tends to drive up prices.

A Contradiction of Altruism

July 25, 2008

I happened across a poem by a minister named Richard Lawrence, part of which reads:

Let no man seek his own,
But every man another's wealth;
And you'll be richer than you know,
It will contribute to your health.

The difficulty of living up to this advice is that, if every man is seeking another's wealth, ultimately for some people to succeed, others have to get wealthy. But then those people are violating the dictum.

This is a generalized problem with altruism: if people are supposed to make sacrifices to others, then the only way for some people to succeed is if others are benefiting by the sacrifices. With sacrifice, some people are losing, and others are gaining at others' expense.

The final two lines indicate that altruism is in fact good for the one seeking another's well-being. It can indeed be the case that seeking somebody else's wealth is self-interested. For example, I want my wife to gain a lot of wealth, and the same goes for all my family and friends, and indeed for all decent people. The problem for altruism is that, in a society of voluntary exchange, I promote the wealth of others in seeking my own wealth. In a free society, one person's gain is another person's gain. But that's not altruism; it's mutually-beneficial cooperation.

The corrective, then, would read:

Let all men seek their own,
And in exchange another's wealth;
And you'll be richer than you know,
It will contribute to your health.

It will contribute to your health and every other aspect of your life.

Who Is John Galt? Letter Writers Prove Point

July 25, 2008

In a recent (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/07/how-obama-lost-another-vote.html) article, my dad and I criticize both McCain and Obama for their assault on individual rights. The article closes:

Ari feels free to mention that he's seriously considering writing in John Galt for president. With so many political "leaders" blaming liberty for the problems caused by political controls, and promising as the answer more severe controls, this election is starting to feel a lot like the world of Atlas Shrugged.

Two letter writers make my point for me.

Jim Ciha (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080723/LETTERS/139707148/1020&parentprofile=1062) replies:

As a forward-thinking progressive not stuck in the capitalistic pro-gun mindset, it's always amusing to read Linn and Ari Armstrong's column. In their latest diatribe, Ari considers voting for Obama because McCain is the worst evil in the race but then he changes his mind (shocking!) and decides not to vote for Obama.

Now, it's pretty laughable to be told that Ari was ever considering voting for Obama when the two Armstrongs spend 13 paragraphs criticizing Obama and only two paragraphs criticizing McCain. The Armstrongs are such teasers. Just when you think they might turn into forward-thinking human beings working for the common good, they go ahead a fall back onto their hysterical Democrats-are-going-to-destroy-our-way-of-life routine. These Armstrongs are such kidders.

What's remarkable about this letter is that it does not contain a single argument. Instead, it accuses me of dishonesty, ignoring the fact that the article explicitly mentions (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/open-letter-to-senators-mccain-and.html) another piece of mine from June 6 in which I lay out my case for voting against McCain by casting my vote with Obama.

Ciha claims that he is "forward-thinking," "progressive," not "stuck" in some mindset presumed (but not shown) to be wrong, and an advocate of "the common good," which of course Ciha doesn't bother to define.

Like I said, "this election is starting to feel a lot like the world of Atlas Shrugged."

In another (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080724/LETTERS/29395052/1020&parentprofile=1062) letter, Robert I. Laitres writes:

The most recent Armstrong column ("How Obama lost another vote") provides us with another example of intellectual myopia and the resultant view of the world.

Some of us do agree that religious organizations have absolutely no business receiving tax dollars. What amazes me in the Armstrong position is that they obviously ignore an even larger group of "pigs at the trough."

We are speaking of industries, financial institutions and agricultural organizations who believe that they are "entitled" to subsidies and "incentives." It would seem that, it being a much larger problem, the Armstrong[s] might rail against those even louder. But they do not. ...

Where do the Armstrongs stand on those issues? Or is their belief in "corporatism" so deep that they cannot bring themselves to condemn the irresponsibility endemic in their philosophy and its consequences?

What of the reported food poisoning of thousands (the real figure is "reported cases" multiplied by 30 to 40) of citizens throughout the United States? Or are the Armstrong going to repeat their standard mantra of "The free market will take care of it?" It may, but after how many people have become sick and/or died?

Theory is fine, but even the Armstrongs will have to admit that people do not live in the theoretical world of John Galt? They live in, and have to deal with, the real one.

Laitress here simply accuses us of something of which are not guilty: accepting or in any way sanctioning "corporatism," understood here as granting select businesses political favors. We have indeed routinely and loudly condemned all forms of corporate welfare and political favoritism. (The fact that we did not do so in the cited column proves only that we can't solve the problems of the world in 800 words.) Yet Laitress tries to smear us with the corporatist position in order to discredit our free-market position, which is diametrically opposed to corporatism.

Laitres does bring up an interesting issue with poisonings; I assume he's referring to the cases of bacterial contamination. In response, I point out that the free market did in fact take care of it. As soon as it becomes known that a certain product is contaminated, stores immediately clear their shelves of the item, and the company responsible takes a huge financial hit. A free market operates under laws protecting individual rights, including torts that protect against harm. Nobody argues that under a free market everyone and every product is perfect. Yet Laitres implicitly condemns us for (non-existent) utopianism.

The part of Laitres's letter that reminds me of Atlas is his insistence that the "theoretical world" is not to be trusted. After completely misrepresenting what our theory actually is, Laitres suggests that theory per se is suspect. And according to what theory does Laitres make his arguments? He doesn't bother to inquire.

It's almost as though Ciha and Laitres were intentionally mimicking the minor villains of Atlas Shrugged.

Comment by Kent: There seems to be a mind set--or "blind set"--that both confirmed R's and D's share. That is the refusal to try to understand an opposition's viewpoint--even his definitions. I understand "corporatism" as Ari does, that is being government aid of one sort or another to specific corporations it favors. This is the very definition of fascism. The free-market is its opposite: favoring or burdening nothing in the market. As Ari points out, operators in the free-market are still subject to tort and contract law. It is neither a "managed-economy" nor "corporatism" we seek, but a free-market where everyone is equal before the law.

Tax Funds for Colorado Christian University

July 27, 2008

As much as I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/reply-to-colorado-media-matters.html) detest Michael Huttner and hate to agree with him about anything, he's right about one thing: forcibly transferring tax funds to students at Colorado Christian University is "a clear violation of the separation of church and state," as he (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9976735) told The Denver Post.

The story reports, "Colorado violated the U.S. Constitution when it blocked taxpayer-funded financial aid to students at religious schools that the state calls "pervasively sectarian," a federal appellate court in Denver ruled Wednesday."

What is Colorado Christian University (CCU) all about? The title reveals its mission. Its (http://www.ccu.edu/) web page elucidates:

FAITH It's the foundation. Faith is the starting point for learning, understanding, growing, and expanding your horizons. At Colorado Christian University, faith is a critical part of your college experience that speaks to character development, integrity, and becoming the person God intended you to be. It's what enables CCU to offer a complete education that trains you professionally, equips you spiritually, and encourages you to build confidence in Christ. Faith is the first step to fulfilling your dreams. Then it requires action.

CCU affirms its "Biblical Foundation:"

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will." Romans 12:2 (NIV)

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17 (NIV)

The college (http://www.ccu.edu/welcome/mission.asp) describes its vision and mission:

Vision
We envision graduates who think critically and creatively, lead with high ethical and professional standards, embody the character and compassion of Jesus Christ, and who thereby are prepared to impact the world.

Mission
Colorado Christian University cultivates knowledge and love of God in a Christ-centered community of learners and scholars, with an enduring commitment to the integration of exemplary academics, spiritual formation, and engagement with the world.

The college also (http://www.ccu.edu/welcome/webelieve.asp) clearly states its evangelical mission:

Colorado Christian University unites with the broad, historic evangelical faith rather than affiliating with any specific denomination. In this commitment, the University embraces the following declarations of the National Association of Evangelicals:

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

CCU makes one (http://www.ccu.edu/admissions/news/news_story.asp?iNewsID=811&strBack=/Default.asp) good point: because "state scholarship funds had already been awarded to students enrolled at Methodist and Roman Catholic universities," it wasn't fair to exclude only one sort of religious college. But of course the solution to that problem is to forcibly transfer wealth to no religious institution, not to all of them.

Notably, Colorado Christian does not dispute the state's claim that it is a "pervasively sectarian institution." Quite obviously it is.

CCU's claim that a denial of the funds violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments is laughable.

The First Amendment, as Jefferson (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/jefferson-danbury.shtml) wrote, was intended to serve the following purpose:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Forcing people to fund Colorado Christian University (directly or indirectly), when they disagree with the mission of that university, violates their rights of conscience, religion, and property.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Forcing people to fund a religious institution against their beliefs clearly violates their liberty and rights to property.

This case demonstrates the perverse dance between the religious right and the socialist left. The left favors welfare (coercive wealth transfers), including welfare for the poor and welfare for students. The religious right does not oppose this government initiation of force, but instead insists on its share of the loot.

Against the likes of Huttner, I emphasize that it is also morally wrong to force Christians to fund welfare through secular institutions, including scholarships for schools that teach doctrines offensive to Christians. Nevertheless, existing welfare ought not breach the separation of church and state.

While the Bible is open to radically diverse interpretations, you'd think that Colorado Christian University, with its Biblical Foundation and all, might at least pay attention to God's advice: "You shall not steal." Shame on you.

Comment by Neil Parille: As I recall, Thomas Jefferson didn't have any role in drafting the Bill of Rights. And when the First Amendment was ratified, it didn't apply to the states. (That came later as a result of Supreme Court interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.) In fact, at the time of the letter Congregationalism was the state religion of Connecticut. Jefferson would have believed that states are free to make their own policy with respect to religion. For example as governor of Virginia he issued day of prayer proclamations, but didn't as US president. Daniel Dreisbach wrote a book on Jefferson's letter. He is a couple essays on this topic on the web.

Comment by Ari: Well, I approve the doctrine of incorporation, which came after Jefferson's time by subsequent amendment. I also agree that the Bill of Rights protects some existing rights but doesn't create rights; the principle of separation of church and state should be upheld regardless.

Randy Pausch

July 27, 2008

I just (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10002326) learned that Randy Pausch died on Friday. This science professor and virtual-reality pioneer died at age 47 of pancreatic cancer. Yet he lived, and lived, and lived, until the very end.

I'd actually seen his book, The Last Lecture, on the shelves, but I paid it little mind. It wasn't until I saw a video (http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/03/quick-roundup-315.html#gui) linked through a blog I like that I paid attention to Pausch. I clicked on the video just to see what's going on—then I watched the entire hour-and-fifteen-minute lecture with laughter and tears.

It is a phenomenal lecture. I highly recommend it. If most people could face their lives with the good will and joy that Pausch faced his final months, the world would be a dramatically more wondrous place.

The focus of Pausch's last lecture is the achievement of childhood dreams. Wow. He achieved his, and he did so with endless enthusiasm and courage.

As a rule, I hate inspirational speakers. I figure if they were really so inspirational, they'd be doing something more interesting than inspiring rooms full of people. But Pausch is not an inspirational speaker; he's and inspirational doer who just happened to give a talk about it.

By the way, Rausch talks about how, even though he didn't get to achieve his dream of playing in the NFL, he did get to play football. The AP reports that, following his lecture, Rausch got to join the Pittsburgh Steelers for a practice.

Rausch's advice is basically solid. I won't repeat it here; the upshot is that you should work hard and work well and appreciate the people around you. (http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/03/quick-roundup-315.html#gui) Watch the video.

Nafisi Reads Lolita in Tehran

July 29, 2008

I've read most of Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. It is a fascinating book with some important lessons.

The book makes vividly real the day-to-day fear and oppression of living under a theocratic totalitarian regime. I found this quote (pages 5-6) heartbreaking:

For nearly two years, almost every Thursday morning, rain or shine, they came to my house, and almost every time, I could not get over the shock of seeing them shed their mandatory veils and robes and burst into color. ... Gradually, each one gained an outline and a shape, becoming her own inimitable self.

These girls got to meet and read books. Not all women fared nearly as well. Nafisi offers a pretty good summary of life for women in the country (page 27):

[W]omen of her mother's generation could walk the streets freely, enjoy the company of the opposite sex, join the police force, become pilots, live under laws that were among the most progressive in the world regarding women... In the course of nearly two decades, the streets have been turned into a war zone, where young women who disobey the rules are hurled into patrol cars, taken to jail, flogged, fined, forced to wash the toilets and humiliated...

And of course many women were simply slaughtered.

What I found most interesting about the book was its point that the Marxist left often helped the theocratic right:

...Marxist organizations had tacitly taken sides with the government, denouncing the protesters [against Islamic crack downs] as deviant, devisive and ultimately acting in the service of the imperialists. ... They claimed that there were bigger fish to fry, that the imperialists and thir lackeys needed to be dealth with first. Focusing on women's rights was individualistic and bourgeois and played into their hands.

Neither America's left nor right is as socialistic as the cultural leaders in Iran are. Yet, as America's left increasingly embraces the religious right, the ultimate potential result looks frightening. If you want to see what happens when Marxists embrace theocracy, read Nafisi's alternately heart-wrenching and horrifying book.

DNC Carbon Credit Fiasco

July 29, 2008

Congratulations to Face the State for (http://facethestate.com/articles/dnc-boondoggle-carbon-credits-fund-broken-turbine) breaking the story about a Colorado wind turbine used by the DNC as a carbon offset. There's just one little problem: the turbine doesn't actually work.

Face the State reports that the "wind turbine installed this year by the Wray School District RD-2... has never produced marketable energy due to massive equipment malfunctions." Nevertheless, both the governor and media reports have praised the "alternative" energy turbine.

Apparently the left cares a lot more about the "alternative" part than it cares about the "energy" part. (Though I do have to wonder how much oil, coal, and natural gas it took to erect this broken wind machine.)

Colorado Springs's Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/convention_38718___article.html/wray_green.html) had some fun with the story:

Religious indulgences involved paying the leaders of various religious institutions that claimed authority or expertise in the spiritual realm. In return for payment, church officials granted absolution for sins. ...

Carbon offsets work the same way. Some wealthy environmentalists pollute far more seriously than ordinary average folks, but they feel bad about it. ...

[Some Democrats] buy indulgences from a branch of the green church called NativeEnergy, a Vermont-based business that brokers carbon credits, or "offsets."

Howard said NativeEnergy paid the school district between $200,000 and $300,000 to issue "green tags," which it will use to represent the indulgence credits. How does one value supernatural green currency blessed by public school officials?

"It's strictly a matter of negotiating price," [Wray superintendent Ron] Howard said.

NativeEnergy officials asked Howard not to disclose the exact amount they paid for the green tags. And why is that? It's because NativeEnergy makes money by marking up the cost of indulgences. The seller (NativeEnergy) doesn't want the buyer (Democratic Party) to know the wholesale price. A freedom of information request will solve the mystery.

But before you laugh too hard, remember that these are the folks setting energy policy for the rest of us.

Personhood and DIM

July 30, 2008

A collection of (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2008/06/08/personhood-amendment-3-letters/) letters published by The Denver Post address Colorado's ballot initiative that seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person (Amendment 48). The thee letters perfectly illustrate an idea of Leonard Peikoff: the three basic approaches to fundamental ideas are Disintegration, Misintegration, and Integration (or DIM, but I'm rearranging the terms to fit the letters).

Martin Voelker writes, "This impossibility to decide doctrinal merits is why government must remain neutral, as indeed our secular Constitution prescribes." While it is true that religions have incompatible tenets, that is not a primary consideration with respect to 48. Voelker is essentially invoking skepticism: we cannot know, so we shouldn't make laws about things about which people are bound to disagree.

Lamar Taylor writes, "Those of us who support the 'personhood' amendment are pro-life. We believe that human life begins at conception." "We believe." While obviously a fertilized egg (as well as a pre-fertilized egg) is both alive and human in the sense of containing human DNA, it is not a human person, which is the letter writer's point. The letter writer offers no argument to back up the assertion that a fertilized egg is a person; "we believe" suffices. This is a symptom of Misintegration, or building a cohesive philosophy around a fundamentally mystical focus. The only argument that has ever been put forward that a fertilized egg is a person is that God said so.

Finally (as I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/lott-on-abortion.html) noted previously), Diana Hsieh writes:

A woman's fundamental right to control her own body, including her right to terminate or sustain a pregnancy, should not depend on majority vote. This would violate that right in spades, based on the fantasy that an embryo is equal to an infant. It would force a woman to provide life support to any fertilized egg—even at the risk of her life and health and even if ruinous to her goals and dreams. It would make actual persons—any woman capable of bearing children, plus her husband or boyfriend—slaves to merely potential persons. That kind of moral evil has no place in a modern society...

Hsieh accounts for the real biological differences between a fertilized egg and a person. Hsieh's invocation of rights points not to some mystical entity but to the requirements of human life and flourishing. Hsieh briefly counters the approaches of both Disintegration and Misintegration. While obviously she can only skim the surface in a short letter, Hsieh's deeper theme is that reason and reality must trump both faith and skepticism.

Selfish Kidney Transfers

July 30, 2008

The headline atop Brian Maines's Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10036065) story states, "Selflessness, to the third power: 3 kidney transplants to occur simultaneously across country." However, the transplants seem to involve entirely selfish behavior:

Martha Hansen, 48, of Albuquerque will give a kidney to Maggie Mrva, 56, of Denver at the Aurora hospital.

Mrva's husband, Slavo, is in Tuscaloosa, Ala., where he will give a kidney to an Alabama woman who wished to remain anonymous.

A friend or relative of the Alabama woman (also anonymous) is in Wake Forest, N.C., where the person will give a kidney to Hansen's friend Robin (who wishes not to identify herself further).

All six parties benefit in this mutally-beneficial exchange. Three people get kidneys. A husband helps save his wife. And two people help save their friends. Sounds like a spectacular deal to me. If my wife or a dear friend needed a kidney, I'd be ecstatic to be able to participate in such a program, because my participation would be a supremely selfish act.

Unfortunately, the federal government forcibly prevents most potential mutually-beneficial kidney transplants, thereby causing the premature deaths of thousands of Americans, as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/111804.html) pointed out. Thus, while we should be thrilled for the three people receiving kidneys, we ought not forget about the tens of thousands of people kept on waiting lists by the federal government.

More Tax Funds for Religious Education

July 31, 2008

On July 27 I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/07/tax-funds-for-colorado-christian.html) discussed the indirect tax subsidy of Colorado Christian University. I pointed out that, typically, when the left imposes coercive wealth transfers, the "religious right does not oppose this government initiation of force, but instead insists on its share of the loot."

I have two more recent cases to share.

Gina Liggett (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/07/creationism-gets-green-light-in.shtml) alerted me to an effort in Louisiana to teach God-based "science." New Scientist published an (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19926643.300?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19926643.300) article on the matter:

Barbara Forrest knew the odds were stacked against her... Her opponents included lobbyists, church leaders and a crowd of home-schooled children. "They were wearing stickers, clapping, cheering and standing in the aisles." ... That was on 21 May, when Forrest testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the state's proposed Science Education Act. She had spent weeks trying to muster opposition to the bill on the grounds that it would allow teachers and school boards across the state to present non-scientific alternatives to evolution, including ideas related to intelligent design (ID)—the proposition that life is too complicated to have arisen without the help of a supernatural agent. ...

Forrest's testimony notwithstanding, the bill was passed by the state's legislature—by a majority of 94 to 3 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate. On 28 June, Louisiana's Republican governor, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, signed the bill into law. The development has national implications, not least because Jindal is rumoured to be on Senator John McCain's shortlist as a potential running mate in his bid for the presidency.

The broader issue is that evolution is demonstrated through overwhelming evidence, while "intelligent design" is the anti-scientific product of religious faith.

But regardless of the scientific facts, it is morally wrong to force people who disapprove of faith-based education to finance it. Yes, it is also morally wrong to force religionists who disapprove of evolution to fund its teaching, but only the former case also violates the separation of church and state. If people want to privately finance the teaching of Creationism, that is scientifically groundless but completely within their proper legal rights.

Here in Colorado, a school-prayer measure has failed to make the ballot, (http://aurorasentinel.com/Main.asp?SectionID=10&SubSectionID=10&ArticleID=19916) according to the Aurora Sentinel:

An Aurora church has abandoned its efforts to get prayer in public schools through a ballot initiative in the upcoming election.

Final Harvest Christian Center had planned to ask voters this fall to approve a measure that would give students five minutes at the start of each school day to meditate, pray by themselves or pray with others.

Obviously, students are perfectly free to spend five minutes (or five hours) praying to Jesus or saying "ohm" before they get to school. The clear purpose of the measure is to bring religion into the tax-funded schools. While the effort failed, its existence helps to show that the much of the religious right has no problem whatsoever using tax funds for its faith-based ends.

A Matter of Priorities

July 31, 2008

Janice Shaw Crouse (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2008/07/30/polarizing_viewpoints_on_sex_trafficking) points out, "The crime of human trafficking is now the world's second most prevalent crime (behind drug trafficking)."

There is an obvious difference between the two sorts of crimes: involuntary servitude inherently violates people's rights, while drug distribution does not. How much more effectively could the world's decent governments fight slavery if they redirected their anti-drug resources (involving consenting adults) to cases of human trafficking?

The government should do everything in its power to eradicate involuntary servitude (including all sexual exploitation of children) within its boundaries. The U.S. could also ease immigration rules for those vulnerable to the modern slave trade. Beyond that, private citizens should be glad to contribute to effective programs to fight slavery globally. (Readers who know of such efforts may leave a note in the comments.) Of course the best way to fight slavery is to promote capitalism, under which the rule of law triumphs and improved living standards enable the masses to thrive.

Initiative Killers

August 1, 2008

In leading up to a story about American expatriation, I'll start with a personal encounter with bureaucracy.

I'm starting up a small-scale side business that involves mail order. While mail order outside of Colorado poses few problems, mail order within Colorado is a royal pain. There's actually a web page called (http://taxcolorado.com/) TaxColorado.com, sort of the antithesis of FreeColorado.com, that takes you to the Colorado Department of Revenue.

One of the (http://www.revenue.state.co.us/PDF/drp1002.pdf) documents there describes the sales-tax nightmare in Colorado. If you're selling everything from a set location, you can figure out all of the relevant sales taxes, then charge all your customers the same tax rate. But if you're trying to ship items elsewhere in Colorado, matters are considerably more difficult.

Sellers are supposed to charge sales tax for all regions in common between the buyer and seller. I live in Westminster. Westminster spreads over two counties. Thus, several rates apply: Colorado, the RTD region, the football stadium region, the cultural tax region, the county tax, and the city tax. If I sell to somebody else in Westminster who lives in the other county, that's a different tax calculation. Here's a description of the RTD tax region:

The Regional Transportation District (RTD) levies a sales/use tax of 1.0% effective January 1, 2005. The RTD boundaries include the counties of Denver, Boulder, Broomfield (except certain areas immediately adjacent to I-25 and Highway 7 interchange), Jefferson, Adams (west of Box Elder Creek), Arapahoe (south of I-70 west of Picadilly Rd. to Jewell, then west of Gun Club Rd. to Quincy, then generally west of Monaghan Rd. including Arapahoe Park and Aurora Reservoir), and Douglas (northern portion plus Highlands Ranch), and parts of Weld County that have been annexed by the City of Longmont and the Town of Erie since 1994.

In the northern portion of Douglas County, the RTD boundaries consist of the city of Lone Tree (original Lone Tree), all annexed areas of Lone Tree, the Acres Green area, and the Park Meadows Mall (in unincorporated Douglas County and not in the city of Lone Tree).

You've got to be kidding me. In addition to all of the work of starting a new business, I now have to figure out which buyer does and which does not live the district described above. When I called the Department of Revenue to explain that this creates a logistical nightmare, the woman on the phone said, in essence, that's the way we do things around here.

I seriously considered two alternatives to starting this small-scale business, a venture that will probably lose me money for at least a couple of years. The first and most appealing alternative was simply to not start the business. Why spend so much effort and risk so much money only to put up with so many hours of bureaucratic hassle? It almost wasn't worth it to me. The second alternative I considered was to set up shop in a state with no sales tax. How many other small-scale operations have been shut down or driven out of state because of Colorado's tax hassle? And Colorado is considered to be relatively business-friendly!

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/10/fi.html) reviewed in the past, other things equal, people tend to move to states with more economic liberty. It should come as no surprise, then, that U.S. economic controls inspire some people to set up shop outside of the country. It's not that other countries are necessarily more free, but other regional attractions, coupled with increasingly stifling controls in America, can encourage some people to leave.

U.S. News (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/07/28/a-growing-trend-of-leaving-america.html) reports:

...Matt Landau appears very much at home in Panama. One might even be tempted to call him an old hand were he not, at age 25, so confoundingly young. Part owner of this lovely boutique hotel in Panama City's historic Casco Viejo, he is also a travel writer (99 Things to Do in Costa Rica), a real estate marketing consultant, and editor of The Panama Report, an online news and opinion monthly. Between fielding occasional calls and text messages, the New Jersey native is explaining what drew him here, by way of Costa Rica, after he graduated from college in 2005. In addition to having great weather, pristine beaches, a rich melting-pot culture, a reliable infrastructure, and a clean-enough legal system, "what Panama is all about," he says, "is the chance to get into some kind of market first." ...

In his recent book Bad Money, political commentator Kevin Phillips warns that an unprecedented number of citizens, fed up with failed politics and a souring economy, have already departed for other countries, with even larger numbers planning to do so soon. ... [M]any... are entrepreneurs, teachers, or skilled knowledge workers in the globalized high-tech economy.

If American economic controls become more stifling, we'll lose more of those people who drive our prosperity. The possibility of getting "into some kind of market first" has little to do with the region and much to do with the economic controls of the region. It's not as though Americans have run out of markets: it's that high taxes and increasing controls have made getting into new markets more difficult or, in many cases, illegal.

Our "souring economy" is due to two main things: the housing crisis and high fuel costs. Notably, both of these problems were caused by politicians. Yaron Brook (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html) explains how politicians mucked up the housing market. High energy costs are the direct result of a decades-long campaign by environmentalists to shut down energy production and divert resources to "alternative" fuels such as corn gas (which has also increased food prices).

We still live in a vibrant and relatively strong economy, filled with opportunities. I love Colorado and I love the U.S. Still, the more politicians here trample economic liberty, the more free-spirited creators and producers will look elsewhere to fulfill their dreams.

Comment by Kent: I live in Panama. I'm dumbfounded that resident Americans still believe they live in a free country. E.G., cameras throughout to watch you; votes stolen by hackable machines; "Know Your Customer" reports to feds in banking; searches without warrant; lost habeus corpus rights; torture defended; gun control; guilty before innocent in IRS courts; telephone and Internet snooping without warrant; phone companies complicit with NSA and unusable. The Constitution is "... only a damn piece of paper"--G.W. Bush. Free country? Not by a long shot. Look elsewhere.

Comment by Mike Spalding: There are software programs that will automatically calculate all the nasty taxes based on the recipient's address. I wrote one of these for a gift basket company. But now these programs are available for anyone.

Values of Harry Potter

August 4, 2008

My just-published book (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter discusses the themes of courage, independence, and free will in Rowling's novels. As this blog focuses on religion, here I'll summarize my treatment of the subject in the book.

The first three chapters are not about religion. Instead, the first chapter describes the heroic fight for values in the Harry Potter novels. As I review, Harry and his allies fight for for their lives, their futures, their friends, and their liberty. They do so against the viciously evil Lord Voldemort. In the second chapter I discuss the virtue of independence that the heroes display; in the third I review the themes of free will in the books.

Chapter Four explicitly takes up the religious theme of sacrifice. I contrast the heroic fight for life-promoting values with self-sacrifice. I briefly discuss Ayn Rand's view of sacrifice and spend several pages going through Aristotle's views of friendship and self-love. I point out that sacrifice does not mean abusing others; it means surrendering a higher value for a lower one (as Rand says). Friends are crucially important to our lives, so it's not sacrificial to fight for our friends; doing so promotes our values. I review numerous cases from the Potter books in this light.

Chapter Five is titled, "Materialism and Immortality." "Voldmort," others have (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/voldemort.html) noted, means "flight from death." Mortality and life after death are large and explicit themes in Rowling's books. I explain how the Horcrux relates to a crass sort of materialism and a pathological fear of death (as well as the abuse of others). I also discuss how these themes relate to the themes values, independence, and sacrifice.

Obviously my book is intended for readers of the Harry Potter novels. So if you haven't finished them yet, get going! You can read the introduction to my book on its (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) web page.

Massage Licensing Rubs Special Interests

August 4, 2008

This article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press on August 4, 2008.

Massage licensing rubs special interests

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We can rest more soundly knowing that muscle-rubbers will be fingerprinted, fined, and registered with the State of Colorado "in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare" as "an exercise of the police powers of the state," as Senate Bill 219 states.

Registering massage therapists, our legislature and governor have told us, "is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety." What a farce. How did Colorado survive for so many decades without such a program?

Is it any surprise that a July 28 story in the Free Press features glowing endorsements of the law by those whose competitors will now be outlawed?

Marilyn Veselack, owner of the Institute of Therapeutic Massage, told this paper, "This was a long time coming, with the Colorado Coalition of Massage Therapists working for years on trying to get what we think is respect."

They've got "respect" all right: now some of their competitors can be thrown in jail. We're not sure if that sort of "respect" is closer to that demanded by the Godfather or Rodney Dangerfield.

One way to legally practice massage therapy is to go to "an approved massage school." Coincidentally, Veselack owns just such a school, which charges $6,000 or $9,000, depending on the program.

Veselack said she currently has around 25 students. The math on that looks pretty good to us, even though Veselack noted that she's not currently paying herself a salary because of costs of moving and remodeling. We do not doubt her sincerity when she says, "My heart is with teaching," we just don't think such teaching should be politically favored.

So what are the pretexts for passing this legislation protecting special interests?

The first is that people are just too stupid to pick a good therapist without the help of the Great Nanny. A big concern is the distinction between real massage therapists and sexually-oriented massage. But we've never met anyone who is unaware of this difference. Massage therapists are good about advertising the therapeutic, non-sexual nature of their services.

Prostitution is a separate legal issue that should not be addressed through laws for therapists.

Your senior author's wife, Sharon, has used massage therapists for many years. Sharon asks friends, doctors and other therapists about the qualities and professionalism of therapists. Most clinics advertise high standards. You wouldn't buy a used car, hire a maid, or go on a date without checking into things; why would you treat massage any differently?

Ari once worked as an unlicensed tutor. He just hired an unlicensed house inspector. In a market, people are free to investigate services, solicit advice, and spend or withhold funds from whatever providers they see fit. Generally, people reward good service with their business.

Certification is no guarantee of quality: Ari has had some dreadful massages from certified therapists. Nevertheless, all the therapists we've ever hired and evaluated are certified, as that at least indicates a basic level of training. Yet there may be somebody, for instance, who has expertly practiced massage for many years in another country who is now subject to new barriers to entry here. The new law violates the right of contract between therapists and willing clients.

It's fraudulent to claim certification or expertise where none exists, and fraud is already against the law. We fully support certification by voluntary groups, much as Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances.

Veselack suggested that we "talk to the police department," especially in Colorado Springs, about human trafficking and other problems involving massage and nail parlors. Grand Junction Police Sergeant Bill Baker said massage is "not something we've been getting calls on."

In Colorado Springs, Lieutenant David Whitlock said he he hadn't heard of the bill. City Attorney Will Bain said, "I don't know anything about it." Sergeant Creighton Brandt said his department "didn't have any direct or even peripheral involvement in the passage of the legislation," though a lobbyist may have weighed in. The El Paso Sheriff's office didn't return our call before deadline.

Where human trafficking is a problem, obviously that's already illegal, and it should be addressed directly, not by registering all massage therapists.

Another excuse for passing the law is that it preempts a patchwork of arbitrary and conflicting local ordinances. We agree that preemption is a good idea in such cases, but such state-level preemption should free people from political controls, not subject them to more.

You may not think that registering massage therapists is a big deal. But our liberty is not dying by a single massive assault, it is dying by a million tiny cuts, with more every year. Such laws entrench protectionism and promote special-interest warfare. They give politicians ever-greater power over our lives. And they train citizens to think and act as children, dependent on the political class for their day-to-day decisions.

What we need is some liberty therapy.

Values of Harry Potter

August 4, 2008

I'm pleased to announce the publication of my book, (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles. It's a 112-page work of literary criticism; you can read the introduction at the book's (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) web page.

As the back cover notes, the book "explores the complex themes of J. K. Rowling's beloved novels, illuminating the heroic fight for life-promoting values, the hero's need for independence, and the role of choice in virtue. Drawing on the ideas of Aristotle and Ayn Rand, Armstrong then critiques the Christian elements of self-sacrifice and immortality, arguing that they ultimately clash with the essential nature of the hero as exemplified by Harry Potter and his allies."

I'm pleased with the project, and, thanks to the design of my wife Jennifer, it's beautiful. Perhaps my favorite material is from the last chapter, where I analyze the Horcrux, an object created through horrific evil. I explain how the Horcrux combines three aspects of evil that drive Rowling's villains, then I discuss Rowling's apparently intended contrast between the Horcrux and the Christian cross.

The earlier chapters deal with courage, independence, and free will.

The book is intended for readers of Rowling's Harry Potter novels. So if you've read them, check out my book and let me know what you think. If you haven't read the novels, I highly recommend them. If you hurry, you can still read all the novels plus my book before the next movie comes out!

Comment by Severin: I am rooting for this book to be a great success! I think the tie in to Harry Potter gives it the potential for the ideas of objectivism and libertarianism to reach an audience that is currently not being reached by the more scholarly types. There are a lot of interesting books and publications that seem to be preaching to the choir, but I think this really has the potential to get beyond the choir.

Comment by Ari: I really appreciate the warm wishes. Thank you. I do need to clarify a couple of points. First, I don't consider myself to be a libertarian, for reasons I've described at length on this site. Second and more important, my goal with this book is to understand the Harry Potter novels and learn from them, not use them as a vehicle to "preach" my ideas to others. That wouldn't be fair to the novels, nor would it provide the basis for an interesting critique. I quote Ayn Rand (who founded Objectivism) only twice in the manuscript. In Chapter Two, I note that both Rand and Rowling present fiercely independent heroes. In Chapter Four, I note that the writers disagree about the meaning and moral status of sacrifice. The reason I do this in Chapter Four, though, is not simply that I want to contrast the ideas of Rand and Rowling; instead, I see a real tension in Rowling's works that is explained by reference to the ideas of Rand (and Aristotle, whom I quote much more extensively). Obviously I welcome readers to buy the book and recommend it to their friends.

God: The Ultimate Abortionist

August 5, 2008

Amendment 48 would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. The presumption behind this initiative is that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul, so it's immoral for a woman to choose to abort it. There's just one little problem with this view; as Pamela White (http://www.boulderweekly.com/20080731/coverstory.html) writes in her outstanding overview of the implications of 48:

[A]bout 30 to 70 percent of the time, the fertilized egg fails to implant and is flushed from the woman's body during her next menstrual period without her ever knowing about it. This is not considered a miscarriage because the egg never implanted and never initiated the physical changes of pregnancy.

Those who want to ban all abortions and the birth-control pill (which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg) believe that it's God's will whether a sperm enters an egg and the egg implants. In other words, according to the assumptions of the Amendment 48 crowd, God commits abortion in 30-70 percent of all cases of fertilization.

"Abortionist" is the smear term used by anti-abortion zealots against doctors who perform abortions. But God is the ultimate abortionist, having performed (I'm guessing) millions of times more abortions than all "abortionist" doctors combined. Anti-abortion zealots routinely refer to abortion as a "holocaust." Then what is it that God is perpetrating?

This points to a deeper problem with this sort of theology. The point of ethics, so goes this line of thought, is to conform our will to God's will. The reason not to murder is that God said so. But if God says to kill your own son, then it would be immoral to refuse. Similarly, God allegedly says that having an abortion is wrong. But if God wants to abort 30-70 percent of all fertilized eggs, then that's perfectly fine. What matters is conformity to God's will, in this view.

This points to the ultimate irony of the anti-abortion crusade. A big part of that movement is a criticism of moral subjectivism at the personal level. But barely beneath the surface of these religious beliefs is moral subjectivism at the supernatural level. Morality is what God says it is, end of story.

What's needed is neither personal subjectivism nor supernatural subjectivism, but an objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

Comment by Darrell Birkey: So you slander God, blaming him for miscarriages and failures for the fertilized egg to implant in the womb. God designed the procreation process, but He doesn't cause miscarriages, etc. You slander and demean God to claim that he does.

Comment: Great article, pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-abortionist crowd.
Religious people: read the OT books again. Look at Num. 5:11-31, Ex. 21:22-25. The OT God spared no life when it didn't serve his purpose—and he killed wantonly to advance the Israelites' cause. Lovely.

"Consumer Choice" Versus Liberty

August 5, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News surprised me with its (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/24/slow-down-the-ethanol-juggernaut/) call for more stringent federal controls on car designs. It's July 24 editorial starts out well enough, noting that "Washington's command-and-control approach to the promotion of ethanol and other biofuels has unleashed a host of unintended consequences."

But then the News concludes:

[W]e also hope lawmakers take a serious look at the Open Fuel Standard Act, a bill launched last week by Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Colorado's own Ken Salazar.

The legislation would require automakers to produce a greater share of flex-fueled vehicles over time. By 2012, half the new cars sold in America, of domestic and foreign origin, would have to run on both gasoline or a "renewable" fuel such as E85 (which is 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline)or biodiesel. By 2015, 80 percent of new cars would have to be equipped to handle either type of fuel.

The bill would not compel car owners to buy gasoline or E85; it would let them select the fuel they prefer, based in part upon price signals. And flex-fuel technology can reportedly be added when cars are built for about $100, or less than 0.4 percent of the average new car's price. ...

Washington would be genuinely expanding consumer choices, not compelling individuals to purchase something they may not want.

The first problem with the News's analysis is that, if the new standards genuinely would help consumers relative to the costs, people would rush to buy the flex-fueled cars without taking a beating by the federal stick.

More significantly, the News praises "consumer choices" outside of the context in which it's a good thing: the system of liberty.

Relevant is not only the choices of consumers but the choices of producers. People have the right to run their businesses the way they see fit, so long as they don't violate the individual rights of others. Consumers properly have the right to choose where to conduct business. What "consumer choice" is all about in the context of liberty is that buyers choose which goods and services to purchase, thereby rewarding the businesses that best meet their needs and allowing businesses that don't meet people's needs to fail. The federal controls violate the rights of property and contract.

To take a simple example, let us say that the Blue Shoe Company produces only blue shoes, and it has found a group of customers happy to buy its products for whatever reason. A federal control that forced all shoe companies to produce red and green shoes would be immoral, as it would violate the rights of the shoe producer as well as of the consumers who wish to do business with the company. An appeal to "consumer choices" would not change the moral status of the controls. The reason that there is not (so far as I'm aware) a company that produces only blue shoes is that most customers want a selection of colors, so shoe companies offer such choices. However, shoe companies often are highly specialized, some making only high-end formal shoes, some making only sneakers. The proper point of the law is to protect people's rights to control their property and contract voluntarily, not to superficially expand "consumer choices" by force.

Thankfully, the News published a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/01/a-differing-view-put-the-invisible-hand-in-the/) reply by Justin Blackman on August 1:

The editorial stated that "consumer choice" would fix these problems and advocated yet another government mandate (the Open Fuel Standard Act) to "put motorists in the driver's seat." This piece of legislation would force automakers to manufacture flex-fuel vehicles.

Normally, "consumer choice" tells automakers what to sell.

Motorists will never be "in the driver's seat" as long as the command-economy mentality persists, and there will always be unintended consequences when the government restricts the freedom of individual consumers to choose what goods and services work best for them.

The solution to energy supply problems is to leave consumers alone and let us decide for ourselves where our money should go. After all, if flex-fuel vehicles are good products, wouldn't we buy them of our own free will?

So good sense prevails at the News in the end, as it so often does.

"Prolifers" Advocate Pain and Death for Women

August 7, 2008

The (http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm) position of the Association of Prolife Physicians speaks for itself:

We must respond to all tragic circumstances of pregnancy from the unshakeable foundation of two indisputable premises: human life begins at conception, and it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. The unborn child's right to life and liberty is given by his or her Creator, not by his or her parents or by the state. ... It is never right to intentionally kill an innocent person, even if it does relieve another's emotional or physical suffering. ...

We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. ... To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered 'pro-life' at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying!

Contemplate that for a moment. This allegedly "pro-life" position would subject women to agonizing physical suffering and the risk of death to maintain the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person.

Notes on the Housing Market

August 7, 2008

As Yaron Brook has (http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html) pointed out, the primary cause of the housing crisis is an array misguided federal policies. As my wife and I have have tried to buy a house, I've noticed a few details that fit into this picture.

The first thing we noticed is that many houses on the market in our area are completely trashed. We were interested in one house because it's a fixer-upper, and we were told that we couldn't qualify for a loan to buy it, because it needs so much work. This puzzled me till I worked out why loans in such cases generally don't work. If we were going to buy that house, we'd need to dump somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 into it to bring it up to standard living conditions. (This house has completely stained carpets, goop on the walls, holes in the walls, broken windows, a dead tree and weeds in the yard, and siding in desperate need of repairs and paint.) We were told that lenders are worried that, once people move into such houses, they won't be willing or able fund the needed repairs. For a moment I wondered why a lender wouldn't simply give us a loan that included cash for the repairs; then I put myself in the lender's shoes and saw the danger of such a deal.

By encouraging people to buy houses who would not otherwise qualify, the federal government has handed over the keys to people who frankly are not ready for home ownership. Many simply aren't ready to take care of the houses or to competently rent them out, so they end up dumping trashed-out houses on the market. My guess is that this is a large, if not the major, cause of depressed housing prices in many areas.

Also in our area, some very nice houses have sold for what they were going for a few years ago. So, while well-kept houses aren't showing strong equity growth, neither are they showing severe losses. (Granted, I live in Colorado, not Los Angeles or Las Vegas.)

Another thing I noticed is that, between about 2000 and 2004, housing prices shot through the roof. This does seem to have been a bubble, which also fits with slumping housing prices now.

Of course, part of the problem is that buyers don't know where the market will bottom out, so they're reluctant to buy given the uncertainty. However, I get the sense that, once the market is clearly turning up, a lot of hesitant people will jump in suddenly.

My wife and I have been trying to buy a house on "short sale," which means that the bank is controlling the sale and willing to take less than the price of the outstanding mortgage. This house, too, has substantial (but I think superficial) problems, which goes a long way toward explaining its relatively low price.

The take-home lesson is that averages don't account for the state of particular houses. Depressed housing prices reflect, in part, a declining condition of many houses. And that in turn was fostered by idiotic federal policies. While certainly it's a good idea to be aware of economic trends, it's also easy to get caught up in statistics and lose sight of what's really going on.

More Anti-Abortion Insanity

August 10, 2008

While many in the country want some restrictions on abortion, the few consistent opponents of abortion want to ban it across the board. The only possible exception might be an extreme risk to the mother's life (because then the fetus is at risk, too). Here's what one Christian (http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa122200a.htm) has to say on the matter:

The best way to handle it legally is to attempt to protect both mother and fetus from being deprived of life without due process. Because of the emergency nature of most life-threatening pregnancies, the doctor would have to make a call that ending the pregnancy (and therefore, if the fetus is too young to survive, the life of the fetus), just as a policeman often must make the decion that a suspect has to be shot dead to protect the public.

The way to handle these emergencies isn't to grant broad judgment to doctors (or cops) to just kill people at their descretion; rather, it is to allow for the prosecutor to not pursue the case if it appears that the doctor (or cop) proceeded on good faith, believing that such a drastic measure as killing was necessary to protect the innocent life of the mother (or public).

Notice the high bar here: if an abortion is "necessary" to protect the "life of the mother," then it may proceed. Presumably, that means that, without an abortion, the mother certainly would die. Unfortunately, in the real world, risks often are less than 100 percent, and doctors rarely are able to perfectly anticipate risks. By the standard mentioned, anytime the risk to the mother were not 100 percent, the doctor would be wading into legal trouble by offering an abortion. Does that mean that, with an 80 percent risk of death to the mother, the doctor may not operate?

Even if the doctor believes that the mother's death is a certainty without an abortion, a prosecutor may disagree. Could a prosecutor find any anti-abortion doctor anywhere who would testify that the mother's life might possibly have been saved? In many or most cases, yes. Medicine is not a science of exactly calculated risks. It is art that often involves educated guesses.

The writer cited does not explain, in detail, how the program would be carried out (because there is no way to do so). What is obvious, though, is that the policy described would result in the deaths of women. That is considered by some to be the "pro-life" position.

Economist Swings By Colorado

August 10, 2008

The Economist thinks it knows why Colorado has gone to the Democrats (via (http://www.geekpress.com/) Paul). More Californians, more Hispanics.

But there is a more important reason for the Republicans' woes: their elected representatives are bonkers.

In the 1970s the state party came under the sway of an anti-tax, anti-big government group known as the "House crazies". This included Tom Tancredo, now a congressional scourge of illegal immigrants. The House crazies eventually joined forces with an equally fierce group of social conservatives rooted in Colorado Springs, headquarters of the evangelical Focus on the Family. ...

More than one lawmaker has got into trouble for comparing homosexuality to bestiality. The small-government wing remains incensed that voters suspended a tax-restraining measure in 2005, even though it was crippling the state's finances.

This is part right, part wrong, and part stupid.

Let's start with the stupid. How exactly is forcibly preventing Colorado businesses from hiring workers from Mexico and elsewhere consistent with an "anti-big government" stance? Instead, Tancredo represents the populist wing of the Republican Party that has alienated both metropolitan sophisticates—Colorado is a highly educated state—and Hispanics. (It turns out that people tend not to vote for you when you threaten to forcibly round up their friends and neighbors and kick them out of the country.)

Now on to the wrong. The claim that taxes restraints were "crippling the state's finances" is just recycling The Denver Post's garbage. What was crippling the state's finances was the insatiable spending habits of politicians.

What The Economist gets right is that Republicans have alienated independents and secular free-marketeers with their incessant calls for faith-based politics. Republicans complain that the left has been spending money like crazy. Well, maybe if the Republicans hadn't constantly berated and condemned homosexuals, they wouldn't have induced rich homosexuals to fight back. (Not that that's where all the money is coming from.) Only Republicans act surprised when people get offended when they're told they're going to hell, tearing apart the culture, corrupting the youth, and engaging in sex comparable to bestiality. Who ever would have thought?

It turns out that Westerners get a little nervous when a Republican running for governor gets a running mate (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) who claims we have no constitutionally-protected freedom from religion.

But Republicans finally seem to be figuring some of this stuff out. For example, Bob Schaffer, who has claimed he wants to end all abortion, recently (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/06/both-udall-schaffer-oppose-abortion-measure/) came out against Amendment 48, which seeks to define a fertilized egg as a person. However, now Schaffer just looks like a spineless jerk. He told the Rocky Mountain News, "I think there are other strategies and tactics that get us far closer to advancing the cause of human life." Is that squishing sound water in your shoes? We'll see whether Schaffer's dodge can save him. Meanhile, his opponent, Mark Udall, has (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) strongly endorsed the separation of church and state. Does that matter? I'll put it to you this way. I cannot think of a single issue other than that where I agree with Mark Udall (though I'm sure there's something). Yet, this November, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him. At least he knows what he believes on the matter and isn't afraid to say.

Comment by Alexander: You seem to be unaware of the effects of massive illegal immigration. Most of the Californians that have moved to Colorado did not leave to escape the bad southern California weather. The quality of life has declined! DUH! More traffic, people, overcrowded schools, hospitals going bankrupt. Ironically many Hispanics have left California for the same reasons. Many illegals from Mexico are pouring into Hawaii. Many state that their fellow compadres in California are NOT welcoming them. Even illegals are getting sick of illegals. So far, many illegals have self-deported, by the hundreds of thousands. They are going "home" -that is what the illegals say... "We are going home" Meaning that they do not consider the US their home. So deal with that... "How exactly is forcibly preventing Colorado businesses from hiring workers from Mexico and elsewhere consistent with an 'anti-big government' stance?" Dude, come on. Businesses do not want to even pay overtime. It is 2008 and we do not allow child labor or unhealthy and dangerous work conditions. It is against the law to hire undocumented workers. Do you need to lose your job to an illegal before you understand that. The next time you speak with a Hispanic, try asking them if they would have a problem with the deportation of an illegal alien gang member. The answer might surprise you. Many Hispanics with green cards are in demand and can demand higher pay. Supply and demand. That is simple economics!

Army of God

August 11, 2008

The Colorado Independent has published a (http://www.coloradoindependent.com/view/colorado-personhood) story by Wendy Norris discussing the colorful backgrounds of some of the supporters of Amendment 48.

The article reports, for example, that Dr. George Maloof "Signed American Life League's petition that saving the life of the mother is never an excuse for abortion." I was curious, so I looked it up. (http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10682) Here is the relevant statement:

I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child's life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.

As I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/reply-to-kyffin-on-abortion.html) written, this may allow just a little bit of wiggle room; perhaps a doctor supposedly can remove an embryo without "intentionally" killing it, even though the doctor knows full well it will die. The more likely scenario, though, is that the doctor will wait until the embryo dies, or the mother is absolutely on her death bed, before taking any action. Of course for some women it will be too late. So, yes, these people believe crazy things.

However, I don't think the Independent's story will do quite what the author thinks. The main doctor it discusses doesn't even live in Colorado. I'm quite certain that, with minimal effort, I could find crazy people who endorse causes close to Wendy Norris's heart.

Everything has to be grand conspiracy for the left. That's because, I think, the left doesn't have much of a positive philosophy to offer. I mean, it has Marx, but it turns out that Marx was wrong about practically everything. So the left, by routine now, just tries to tie everything it doesn't like to some crazy or shady person or group, as though that were a substitute for an actual argument.

Still, this sort of story has value, if taken in its appropriate context.

ACLU Sues Denver Over Mistaken Arrests

August 11, 2008

Even though I'm still mad at Colorado's ACLU for (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/04/aclnot.html) supporting Referendum C, which clearly lies outside the organization's mandate, once in a while the group reminds me that, sometimes, it does crucial work on behalf of liberty. Consider today's (http://www.aclu-co.org/news/pressrelease/release_mistaken_id_08.11.08.htm) media release:

ACLU sues Denver on behalf of five innocent victims of "mistaken identity" arrests

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 11, 2008

CONTACT: Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director...

On behalf of five clients, the ACLU of Colorado filed suit today against the City and County of Denver and various Denver law enforcement officers, charging that in each case, "recklessly sloppy police work" resulted in the innocent plaintiff's arrest and imprisonment—as long as 26 days in one case—for crimes with which they had no connection whatsoever.

The lawsuit describes the ACLU clients as victims of "mistaken identity" arrests—in each case, Denver law enforcement officers had legal grounds to arrest a particular suspect for an offense, but instead they arrested or caused the arrest of one of the ACLU's innocent clients. In each case, the ACLU asserts, officers deliberately ignored facts that demonstrated that they were arresting or causing the arrest of the wrong person.

In four cases, the ACLU's clients were arrested on a warrant that authorized the arrest of a entirely different person. After any arrest, Colorado law requires a prompt appearance before a judge, but in almost every case, the ACLU's clients were denied that right, preventing them from explaining to the court that they were not the person named in the arrest warrant. Similarly, Denver Sheriff Department deputies at the jail refused to investigate obvious red flags and repeated complaints from Plaintiffs and their family that they were locking up the wrong person.

The lawsuit asserts that Denver policymakers have knowingly tolerated and turned a blind eye to an unjustifiable risk and frequency of such "mistaken identity" arrests. The ACLU contends that Denver officials failed to adopt the necessary policies, procedures, supervision and training that would reduce or eliminate the risk of such "mistaken identity" arrests. The ACLU also cites Denver's failure to adopt necessary policies to detect and promptly correct such "mistaken identity" arrests when they occur, and its failure to ensure that arrested persons were brought promptly before a court.

The suit also asserts that the ACLU clients and other victims of "mistaken identity" arrests attempted to file complaints with Denver officials after their arrest, but the complaints were rebuffed or ignored.

Read rest of the release details the stories of five people who were mistakenly arrested. Nice job, Silverstein. It will be very interesting indeed to learn what becomes of this.

Take That, IE

August 11, 2008

The other day I checked my web page on a machine hooked up with Internet Explorer, which reminded me that I'd never fixed my page to work with that (idiotic) browser. Well, the fix was spectacularly simple. I just changed the alignment of the banner from "left" to "middle." So now I have to live with a centered banner, but at least the page works now for those of you still living in the technological dark ages. (I'm sure there are other ways to fix the problem, but at least I've found one of the ways.) If anybody still has problems viewing this page, please let me know. Thanks.

Good Colorado Service

August 12, 2008

I've been known for a touch of surliness when I get bad service, but at least I also try to promote people and companies that give me good service. Though the topic is unusual for this web page, I wanted to recommend four businesses today. (I get nothing out of this except the satisfaction of promoting people I like. Please note that I haven't asked any of these people if they want me to publicly praise them, so don't assume that they endorse any of my positions or statements.)

If you need a house inspection, I recommend Mike Bruchs, a Denver-area member of The Home Team Inspection Service. He's at 303.954.4453. I'm convinced that Mike found every problem with the house he inspected for me that falls within his job description. (He's also good about mentioning what he's unable to check.) Not only did I gain a great deal of useful information about the particular house, but I learned a lot about houses in general.

If you need massage, I have two recommendations. Here's a recent praise quote I sent to (http://nowandzenmt.com/) Now and Zen Massage: "Of the scores of massage therapists I've seen, Andrew is among the very best at finding tense muscles and working them out. Only two other therapists with whom I'm familiar belong in his league. I do a lot of work at the computer, and over time this strains muscles in my neck, shoulders, and back. Andrew keeps these muscles from becoming a painful distraction from my work and life. In you need a truly therapeutic, expert massage for muscle tension, Andrew earns my highest recommendation."

Also, (http://www.lthaw.com/locations.shtml) Lifetime Health and Wellness hires a Romanian named Cornel who offers a spectacular deep-tissue massage. His technique is different from that of any American I've seen, and it works very well for me.

Finally, (http://www.kimcoprinting.com/) Kimco Printing recently did some work for me that turned out beautifully. The job was completed early, too. The business doesn't have the best slickest image, but they deliver quality where it counts.

How to Think Like an Apologist

August 13, 2008

A few days ago, I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/08/god-ultimate-abortionist.html) pointed out that many or most fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus and die naturally. Thus, according to the Christian view that God controls the universe, God is the ultimate abortionist.

A fellow named Darrell Birkey replied, "So you slander God, blaming him for miscarriages and failures for the fertilized egg to implant in the womb. God designed the procreation process, but He doesn't cause miscarriages,etc. You slander and demean God to claim that he does."

I confess to be being disappointed with Birkey's reply; I was sort of hoping he'd, you know, offer some sort of argument to back up his position. If I were a Christian apologist, I might argue something along these lines:

It is true that God controls the universe and whether an egg fertilizes and implants in the uterus. However, when God allows a fertilized egg not to implant, that is not the equivalent of an abortion. God knows before-hand whether he's going to allow an egg to implant, and he imbues only those fertilized eggs destined for implantation with a soul. Thus, a fertilized egg that God allows to die does not have the moral status of a fertilized egg that the woman willfully aborts.

Yes, God also knows before-hand whether the mother is going to abort. However, this remains a matter of free choice for the woman. A woman is bound to obey the will of God. It is impossible for the woman to know which fertilized egg God intends to imbue with a soul. Thus, it is wrong for a woman to take any action with the intention of blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in her uterus.

But why does God allow some fertilized eggs to die in the first place? Why didn't he create us such that all fertilized eggs implant in the uterus and successfully grow to live babies? Why do fertilized eggs fail to implant or sometimes die after they have implanted? God's plan for the universe is too grand for us lowly mortals to fully comprehend. However, the biological facts do offer us a wonderful opportunity to live our faith in God. Some women are tempted to think that the fertilized egg she kills is the same as a fertilized egg that God allows to die. But the woman properly understands that God is in charge, and she must let his will decide the matter.

And here is my brief reply to this apologist nonsense.

First, there is no God, no proof of God, and no mystical soul with which God imbues a fertilized egg. Thus, there is no reason to think that one fertilized egg is different from any other, morally speaking. The final paragraph appeals to human ignorance, as though that resolves any paradox with the religion. Finally, if God did exist, it would be a bit nasty of him to allow some fertilized eggs to die merely so that women could face temptation to prevent implantation or get an abortion.

If anybody else has a better explanation for why God would kill more fertilized eggs than all abortion doctors combined, I'd love to hear it.

Comment: Another difficult question with the life-at-conception position is the issue of twinning, which occurs after conception, but prior to gastrulation. Personally, I believe life begins somewhere from gastrulation to the point of brain wave activity (day 10-48 after conception), but most people are not familiar with the process. Spiritually speaking, life would begin when the spirit enters the body, so the question for Christians would be "when does one become a 'body'?" If a spirit enters at conception, then the zygote splits before implanting in the uterus, would the spirit split or would another one enter the womb? A bit of a stretch, even for a staunch pro-lifer. The knee-jerk pro-life response, however, typically comes from the obvious fact that life begins prior to birth, yet society refuses to acknowledge the scientific evidence and chooses the indefensible position that a child killed one day after birth is somehow vastly different from the child killed one day prior to birth. It seems that few on either side of the abortion debate will actually use reason, science and faith to answer the question at the root of it all: When does life begin? It's not above our pay grade, as a society, to ask such a question, then seek out the truth regardless of where that takes us.

Comment by Darrell Birkey:

I am truly sorry that you were disappointed by my reply. I am a Christian apologist... just not one who endorses the non-biblical views of God that the bible never endorses. You pretend to take the viewpoint of a Christian apologist, but in fact you have just built a straw man to knock down.

There are many inaccurate views of God that are expressed by Christians, because of the personal investments many theologians have in there positions.

The bible teaches that God created the universe, including human beings and all of the animals. He created the systems that maintain life on earth and our reproductive systems, etc.

He designed them to function perfectly. Since he wanted a relationship with humans and wanted to be loved by them and he wanted the love to be real, he gave them a choice... to love him or hate him. To accept God or reject God.

He intended that they would love him and that they would live forever in a world of paradise. But when humans chose to reject him, they brought death into the world. Their lives on earth would be temporary because of the effects of entropy on the human body. That same entropy eventually results in mutations, etc. that cause disease and lead to earlier death.

The bible never teaches that God micromanages the universe, the weather systems or the human body, including reproduction. He designed these systems to function... and function they do. He does not decide the path of tornadoes or which embryos implant in the uterus. He does not decide which embryos get a soul... they all do as a function of his reproductive design.

The bible also never teaches that God exhaustively knows the future of people's lives and decisions. The future is unknown because it hasn't happened. The bible does present God with having future plans of what he is going to do... but we make plans as well and there is nothing mystical about following through with plans.

The bible shows us a God who is willing to change his mind or his plans based on changing circumstances.

When embryos miscarry, it is not an act of God or is God responsible in anyway. He is not making a decision embryo by embryo. He lets the reproduction system he designed function. Because our reproductive systems (because of entropy) are no longer perfect and our bodies and behavior is not perfect, some embryos don't survive to grow up and grow old. Just as accidents, illness, and personal behavior can shorten or lives after we are born, they can do the same for the embryo.

We have many choices in our lives and sometimes we make bad choices with bad consequences. This is not God's fault.

Bad Week for Denver PD

August 14, 2008

The week started with the ACLU (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/08/aclu-sues-denver-over-mistaken-arrests.html) suing the Denver Police Department for arresting the wrong people. Now, a new video apparently shows that Denver officers slammed a man's head into the ground, breaking his teeth, and then lied about it under oath. The original charge? Running a red light on a bicycle.

Deborah Sherman of 9News (http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=97532) broke the story. Check out the video. Also read the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/13/video-contradicts-officers-tale-about-head-slammin/) account of the Rocky Mountain News.

Will this result in criminal charges and dismissal from the force?

Meet Colorado's Congressional Delegation

August 14, 2008

Colorado sends seven people to the U.S. House of Representatives. Of those seats, three are solidly Republican, two are solidly Democratic, and two are held by strong Democratic incumbents. In other words, as of Tuesday's primary, Coloradans have already effectively elected their members of Congress. The only competitive primaries were in the second district, where Jared Polis beat insider Joan Fitz-Gerald by spending $5.3 million of his own money, and the sixth district, where Secretary of State Mike Coffman handily beat Wil Armstrong (leaving Democratic Governor Bill Ritter to appoint Coffman's successor at the state level). So who are these strange cats who are supposedly representing us in Washington?

First District: Diana DeGette has been in office for as so long that I don't recall offhand who preceded her. Typical Denver Democrat. Not too kooky.

Second District: Polis ran on a hard-left, socialist platform. (I know this because I live in his district and received his campaign literature.) That's somewhat ironic, because I believe I first met Polis at an event featuring Milton Friedman, who came to town to talk about vouchers. I sort of like Polis, and that may even remain true if he forgets about his ridiculous campaign promises and gets down to the serious business of protecting our rights. I confess to hating rich jerks who want to shove socialism down the rest of our throats. We'll see if that's what Polis becomes. I am particularly concerned about Polis's plans to socialize medicine (a system that he will not be forced to live under).

Third District: John Salazar, brother of Senator Ken, seems like an okay moderate Dem. I don't know much about him, and, for a Congressman, that's not a bad thing.

Fourth District: Marilyn Musgrave is best known for trying to amend the U.S. Constitution with a marriage restriction. But she's laid off of the anti-homosexual agenda somewhat. At least she's a good vote on guns; that's the only thing I can think of off-hand to like about her. (There is something humorous about the same state sending both Musgrave and Polis to Congress; you've got to love Colorado.)

Fifth District: Now we get to the Crazy Brigade. Doug Lamborn (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/files/CQ/Doug%20Lamborn.pdf) signed Colorado Right to Life's 2008 Candidate Questionnaire. He answered "yes" to the following questions:

1. Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn?

2. Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? ...

3. Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendent effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization? ...

6. Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)?

7. Will you refuse to support any legislation that would allow abortion, even if it is a 'pro-life' bill? (i.e. legislation that says "Abortion shall be prohibited unless...")

Sixth District: Coffman (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/files/CQ/Mike%20Coffman.pdf) answered "yes" to the exact same questions. By putting up Lamborn and Coffman, Colorado Republicans have demonstrated that they take faith-based politics very seriously, and they overtly want to diminish the separation of church and state.

Seventh District: Ed Perlmutter seems like another centrist Dem; he doesn't seem to make the news much.

To summarize, of Colorado's seven representatives, one is a socialist Democrat, three are moderate ("socialism light") Democrats, and three are faith-based Republicans. Of that mix, not a single one comes close to representing my views; not one holds as primary individual rights, including both freedom of conscience and economic liberty.

If There Is No God

August 19, 2008

Dennis Prager's "new" (http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/19/if_there_is_no_god) article, "If There Is No God," recycles a variety of bogus claims about atheism, yet at least it grants, "[I]t is not possible to prove (or disprove) God's existence." However, if it is not possible to prove something, it is not necessary to disprove it. Arbitrary claims should be dismissed out of hand. Nevertheless, because claims about God involve absurd metaphysical presumptions, it is possible to disprove God's existence.

Without God, Prager asserts, "there is no good and evil," "there is no objective meaning to life," "[l]ife is ultimately a tragic fare," and so forth. Of course this is complete nonsense. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, which rejects supernaturalism, shows that good and evil are rooted in human life and its requirements and that one's life, properly lived, can be meaningful and joyous.

Moreover, supernaturalism deflates to the same subjectivism that Prager criticizes; good and evil become dependent on the whims of a supernatural being, and "objective" comes to mean adherence to arbitrary doctrines. A better title for Prager's article would have been simply: "Projection."

Amendment 48 Would Harm Actual People

August 19, 2008

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080818/OPINION/707238409/) published August 18, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press.

Amendment 48 would harm actual people

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We used to be on opposite sides of the abortion issue. Linn has long held that it should be legal, while Ari once thought that it should not. Now we agree that Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution, is a horrible idea that would result in death, misery, and lost liberty for actual people.

Many years ago, we went to a local event to hear one of the lawyers involved in the Roe v. Wade decision on the legalization side. During the questions, someone in the audience harshly condemned the lawyer for aiding in the murder of babies. The lawyer fired back that science, the Supreme Court, and most people rejected his claim. We left the event where we entered it: on different sides of the issue. This would have been before Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe," converted to Christianity and opposed abortion.

Around that time, Ari even wrote a letter to a local paper (that we can't find now) pointing out a seeming paradox with the legalization side. As far as we recall, some criminal had harmed a woman, resulting in the death of her fetus. If a fetus is not a person, Ari reasoned, why should we care whether a criminal harms it? It was a pretty good letter. But its premise was wrong.

Now Ari has worked on a paper criticizing Amendment 48 for the Coalition for Secular Government (SecularGovernment.us) that should be available this week. Here we'll review some of the highlights.

The first fact that opponents of abortion must confront is that, if a fertilized egg should have all the same legal rights as a born infant, that implies that criminal penalties should apply for abortion. Notably, current statutes define first-degree murder as killing a person "after deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person." Surely that describes abortion, if a fertilized egg is a person.

The penalty? Under current statute, the penalty for first-degree murder is life in prison or the death penalty. One Denver minister has openly advocated the death penalty for women who get abortions. If you oppose abortion, is that really what you want? If not, what sort of criminal penalty do you have in mind?

Many women get abortions for health concerns. For instance, a small percent of fertilized eggs start to grow in the fallopian tubes rather than in the uterus. These ectopic pregnancies can be fatal. If a fertilized egg is a person, then can doctors perform abortions even if the woman's life is at risk? Or would doctors be forced to watch their patients endure hours of agony and operate only at the very last minute? Though most pregnancies don't turn out that way, in some cases Amendment 48 would cause the death of the woman.

But the consequences of Amendment 48 extend far beyond abortion. Many types of birth control would be banned. For example, while the pill usually acts to prevent fertilization, it may also act to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. While the matter would result in lengthy political and legal battles, many opponents of abortion do argue that the pill prevents implantation. Emergency contraception and IUDs also would have to be banned under Amendment 48. The inevitable result would be more unplanned pregnancies.

Fertility clinics also would have to be shut down, because they operate by fertilizing eggs in the lab, then transferring select fertilized eggs into the woman. In 2005, Colorado's seven fertility clinics helped around 820 women deliver babies. According to advocates of Amendment 48, these pregnancies should be forcibly prohibited. In the name of saving fertilized eggs, the measure would prevent the births of hundreds of babies every year.

A fertilized egg clearly is not the biological equivalent of a born infant. A fertilized egg is microscopic, without any organs or awareness. An older fetus too is dramatically different from a born baby. A fetus is totally contained within the woman and totally dependent on her for oxygen and nutrition. A born baby, while still basically helpless, can breath and eat using its own organs. Though the case can be expanded, that's the basic reason why an embryo or fetus should not have the same legal standing as a born infant.

What about the case of the criminal who harms a fetus? A woman who learns that she's pregnant and decides to have the baby is overwhelmingly excited by the pregnancy. She looks forward to delivering a baby and raising a child. The fetus is both a physical and legal extension of the woman. A criminal who harms a woman's fetus deserves harsh criminal penalties.

Amendment 48 would result in needless death, intrusive police actions over our sexual lives, and the banning of fertility treatments. As the title of the new paper summarizes, the measure is anti-life.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: I have also wondered what would happen when a woman has a miscarriage--technically termed 'spontaneous abortion.' In such cases, would the DA have to investigate each miscarriage (and up to 1/3 of pregnancies end in a miscarriage prior to 12 weeks) as possible manslaughter?

Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life

August 19, 2008

"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a paper by Diana Hsieh and me, is (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) now available.

Following is the media release:

MEDIA RELEASE—COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

New Paper: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, published by the Coalition for Secular Government is available on the web at:

(http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Contact:

Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and Founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, diana**ATSIGN**SecularGovernment**DOT**us

Ari Armstrong, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and editor of FreeColorado.com, ari**ATSIGN**freecolorado**DOT**com

AMENDMENT 48 IS ANTI-LIFE, NEW PAPER SHOWS

"Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution, is profoundly anti-life," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.

"It would obliterate basic reproductive rights in Colorado based solely on the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is the moral equal of a born infant. The biological facts show just the opposite: that only the pregnant woman, and then the born infant, are persons with rights," Hsieh said.

"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," written by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh and published by the Coalition for Secular Government, shows that the ballot measure is hostile to human life in myriad ways:

* Given existing criminal statues, Amendment 48 would subject women and their doctors to life in prison or the death penalty for abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.

* It would prevent doctors from properly treating non-viable ectopic pregnancy until the woman's life and health was in serious danger, thereby causing needless deaths.

* It would force thousands of women each year to bear unwanted children, whatever the cost to their own lives and happiness.

* The measure would ban popular and effective forms of birth control, including the birth-control pill, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies.

* It would outlaw the fertility treatments responsible for the birth of hundreds of Colorado babies to eager parents each year.

"The voters of Colorado must protect their reproductive rights against this dangerous assault. They must vote 'NO' on Amendment 48," Hsieh said.

Churches Should Keep Out of Politics, Poll Says

August 21, 2008

(http://pewresearch.org/pubs/930/religion-politics) This is an interesting survey (thanks to Kelly M.); a slim majority of Americans (52 percent) think churches should keep out of politics. This is up from 44 percent just four years ago. Perhaps when people got a taste of the religious right via the Bush administration (which only partly tried to appease the religious right), they figured out that maybe faith-based politics isn't so great, after all.

This surprised me a bit:

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.

Yet it's not hard to figure out that, with government programs such as "faith-based initiatives" come government strings. And perhaps many religious conservatives are figuring out that, when they alienate independents and the secular free-market movement, they no longer participate in a winning coalition. Grover Norquist points out that, when the religious right merely calls on government to leave religious beliefs alone, the faction can play nicely with others. But when religious conservatives try to impose faith-based restrictions and spend tax dollars to promote religion, they make enemies out of those loyal to liberty.

Comment by Jennifer Snow: It doesn't really surprise me all that much. I believe there's a historical precedent for church leaders in Europe being advocates for a separation of church and state because the medieval marriage between the two meant that the local secular authority had the power to dictate church doctrine. When a more-liberal secular leader is trying to prevent unrest between Catholic and Protestant factions in his country, the church factions don't like it much. There are so many different religions in the U.S. that ALL of them feel like persecuted minorities when the govt. gets involved in their activities--which is the natural and inevitable result of a faith/politics merger.

Staged Silliness

August 22, 2008

Check out (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10270047) this picture of the stage of the Democratic National Convention. Apparently the Democrats think Obama is running for President of Disney Land. That God I don't have a television, so I only have to witness this in a static photo. Does this sort of garish silliness really work with people? But I guess Obama doesn't actually have any good ideas, just the show. If he wins, I'll just call him the Dazzle President. (Obama's main talk will be across the way at the football stadium. Wait a minute—why was I feeling comforted by that?)

Hellboy II

August 22, 2008

I was pleasantly surprised by Hellboy II. I remember the story from the first one being completely ridiculous. Here the main story is more interesting if hardly plausible, but the rich characters make it a memorable movie. Center stage are two romances. Even though only one of these four characters is human (and two don't even look human), their relationships are quite compelling. The bad guy is the son on an Elvish king and the brother of one of the love interests. He's a "complex" villain, meaning that the viewer is supposed to sympathize with him. This leads to a bifurcated character.

The movie is hilarious. Truly, deeply funny. This from the guy who gave us Pan's Labyrinth. Two of the fight scenes are an absolute riot (given that our hero is nearly indestructible). And there are some very funny moments in Hellboy's love life. So "funny" comes to the fore, leaving melancholy to fill the recesses. I have no interest in seeing the first film again, but I'm sure I'll rent the second film down the road.

The Big House Buy

August 22, 2008

You may have noticed that things have been somewhat slow at FreeColorado.com lately. This is because, in addition to writing a (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) book and co-authoring an (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) issue paper, I closed on a house on Wednesday. My wife and I closed on a house, I should emphasize. Our experiences may offer some insight into today's housing market.

The price we paid will bring down the averages: the sales tag was $145,000, not bad for a three-bedroom house at its location. However, we are paying for that low price in other ways. Consider:

* The process took eleven weeks. During that time, we had to put most of our stuff in storage and live in a temporary situation.

* The siding was a complete disaster; it hadn't been painted in many years, and much of it was bare. To qualify for the loan, I had to spend my own time and money, prior to closing, to scrape and prime the house. We also had to fix two windows. I have never heard of a real estate deal where the buyer fixes the house before closing.

* There's quite a lot wrong with the house. In addition to the siding repairs, it needs new paint inside and out, some patchwork to repair old water leaks, a new hot water heater, a complete landscaping job, bathroom repairs, and so on. So, even though the price is lower, this largely reflects the time and money that we'll have to put into the place.

* The previous owner had the place rented and those parties had some sort of dispute about the place. For my first inspection, I couldn't get access to the house, so I had to pay extra for the wasted trip.

Put simply, very few people would have had the time, patience, or resources to buy this house. On several occasions I was convinced the deal had fallen through. So bear that in mind when you hear averages of housing prices. My guess is that we are approaching the point where marginal buyers will start to feel more secure about the market, then they'll buy, buy, buy. Once all the difficult houses are off the market, real estate values will improve nicely. But that's just a guess.

Need a Loan?

The buy would not have been possible without the dedication of our loan officer, Elsa Wohlford of (http://www.pmglending.com/) Premier Mortgage Group. She went so far beyond the call of duty that I'll be forever grateful. (I get nothing for promoting her other than the satisfaction of doing so. Readers should not assume that she endorses any of my views or positions.) If you're looking to buy a house via a loan, or refinance, you could do no better than to sign up with Elsa.

Hsieh's Warning for Democrats

August 25, 2008

Diana Hsieh has been busy promoting the Coalition for Secular Government. A few days ago, her (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/08/emerging-religious-left.shtml) letter appeared in the Rocky Mountain News; it is a needed warning for Democrats as they converge in the state:

The First Amendment of the Constitution upholds freedom of religion as absolute. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, it builds "a wall of separation between church and state."

For the past 30 years, that wall has been under attack from the religious right via "intelligent design," "faith-based initiatives" and now Colorado's own "definition of a person" amendment.

Alarmingly, Democrats are jumping on the faith-powered bandwagon. A powerful religious left is emerging within the Democratic Party, determined to entangle politics and religion. The ideal espoused by John F. Kennedy that the religious views of a politician should be "his own private affair" is dying.

Democrats, religious or not, must speak out for freedom of religion. If they don't, their party will soon be in the iron grip of savvy Christian evangelicals, just like today's Republican Party.

Thankfully, Colorado Democrats such as Mark Udall have endorsed the separation of church and state. That is a major reason why Colorado Democrats routinely beat the hell out of Republicans.

Comment by Neil Parille: I know I've mentioned this before, but this is quite an exaggeration of Jefferson's position. As governor of Virginia, he did support some religious funding and also declared days of prayer and thanksgiving. Even as president, he authorized granting money to an Indian tribe to build a church.

People's Press Collective

August 25, 2008

To see photos and videos from the streets of the Democratic National Convention, see the (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) People's Press Collective. (This a conservative outfit, despite its fun name.) I myself am happy hanging out in the burbs, away from the craziness. (I put in for tickets to hear Obama's talk, but instead of tickets I got a spot on the campaign propaganda list, which was sort of annoying.) I hear that hotels as far away as Longmont are sold out.

Gazette Slights Atheists

August 26, 2008

The generally-thoughtful Gazette of Colorado Springs gets off track in a recent (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/gun_39522___article.html/atheists_religion.html) editorial. While there's much wrong with the piece, I want to focus on one particular paragraph:

This column has advocated religious liberties for atheists, citing case law that defines atheism as just another religion—as in just another unproven and forever unprovable belief. This column has applauded a federal court ruling that forced prison wardens to allow prisoners an atheist study session. The court allowed the study session for the same reason wardens allow Bible study meetings: atheism is a religion, therefore subject to protections and restrictions of the First Amendment.

Notice the subjectivism inherent in this view. The editorial presumes that religion is superior to atheism, yet all religious beliefs boil down to "unproven and forever unprovable" beliefs. In other words, the point of religion is not to get to the truth, but to promote some particular and entirely arbitrary position. Later, the editorial explicitly invokes ignorance to "justify" religious beliefs. This shows an irony common among Christians. Christians blast atheism as subjectivist and relativistic, yet many of these same Christians ultimately rest their case on subjectivism and relativism (and all of them implicitly do so).

What is needed is an alternative that is neither faith-based nor subjectivist, but based on the objective facts of reality. True, we don't know everything about reality, but we can know a lot, and we can continually expand our real knowledge. With the advances particularly of Aristotle and Ayn Rand, we have available to us an objective moral foundation.

As for the First Amendment, atheism is not protected because it is "just another religion." That amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." The principle is that the government ought neither promote nor hinder religion. Instead, the government's job is to protect individual rights. Freedom of conscience is the broader principle inherent in the First Amendment, and this properly applies to all ideas, not just religious ones. However, while it's wrong for government to force the religious to finance non-religious ideas, the First Amendment expressly limits government support for religion.

Pepper Spray in Denver

August 26, 2008

So much for calm protests. The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/politicswestnews/ci_10301186) reports, "About 7 p.m. Monday, riot police using pepper spray forced a couple of hundred protesters out of Civic Center and then blocked them before they could reach the 16th Street Mall. ... Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the convention's Joint Information Center... said an officer fired the first spray when several of the protesters charged toward the police line, which had been set up to protect the roadway and prevent any movement toward the pedestrian mall."

I am concerned by claims that, first, the group had a permit to protest there, and, second, the police surrounded the group, preventing people from dispersing. But it's not like I exactly trust a group called Recreate 68.

I've done a bit of protesting myself—enough to know its tiring and in many contexts not very useful. In general, while I support people's right to peacefully protest within the constraints of property rights, I have to wonder about people who get a kick out of routinely seeking confrontations with the police.

Faith-Based Obama

August 27, 2008

In his August 18 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10231700) article, Jim Towey, former director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, writes that "Obama wants to abandon President Bush's—and President Clinton's—efforts to protect the right to hire on a religious basis of faith-based charities that provide taxpayer-funded social services."

What are these alleged rights? Towey thinks recipients of federal dollars should be able to "hire on a religious basis," yet "[f]or decades, religious charities have had to knuckle under to the directives of the federal government if they wanted public money."

Religious groups do not have any right to other people's money redistributed by force.

Whether or not faith-based groups discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, they should not receive a single cent of tax money. To forcibly redistribute money to religious groups from those who do not wish to fund them violates the latter group's rights of property and conscience.

Towey writes, "Planned Parenthood receives bundles of federal money and hires only the like-minded. Why are faith groups held to a different standard?" Towey's argument is disingenuous; there is no "different standard." Planned Parenthood does not discriminate on the basis of religion, and the fact that opponents of abortion choose not to work there is their own choice. Regardless, the relevant standard is that government ought neither promote nor hinder religion. Spending tax dollars for faith-based purposes clearly violates this standard. I agree that it's wrong for Planned Parenthood to receive tax dollars. But the first wrong does not justify state support of religious organizations.

Comment by Adam Reed: "It's wrong for Planned Parenthood to receive tax dollars." Sure—and it is also wrong for City of Hope to receive government subsidies for treatment of cancer. It is misleading to object to government funding of some medical procedures, such as abortion, outside the context of objecting to all government involvement in medicine, or any other activity that is only fully legitimate when it is completely voluntary for all involved. But it would not be legitimate for governments to pay for some medical procedures, such as surgery for cancer, while refusing—on what can only be religious grounds—to pay on an equal basis for abortion and other "religiously incorrect" medical care. Separation means that religion is NEVER by itself a good reason for funding one thing and not funding another, regardless of whether or not their shared category is or is not, as a category, a proper government function.

Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy

August 27, 2008

MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy

Sedalia, Colorado / August 27, 2008

Contact: Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," Diana**AT**SecularGovernment**DOT**us

The wholehearted embrace of faith-based politics by Democrats is the big news of the Democratic National Convention. "It's a losing strategy, particularly in more freedom-minded states like Colorado," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.

A (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/930/religion-politics) recent Pew survey showed that Americans are growing more wary of the persistent attempts of politicians to inject their private faith into public policy. A majority of Americans of all political stripes oppose the mixing of politics and religion.

In Colorado, the Republican Party's determination to enact laws and policies based on sectarian Christian values has resulted in stunning defeats in recent elections. Colorado was once a solidly red state, but now it's purple, and turning blue.

"Despite these losses, the religious right is still on the warpath in Colorado," Hsieh said. "This election, they're attempting to force God's law on the state via Amendment 48, the ballot measure which would grant fertilized eggs all the legal rights of persons in the Colorado constitution. If passed and implemented, the amendment would criminalize abortion as murder and ban the the birth control pill. It would be a disaster for the men and women of Colorado." See "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a Coalition issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, available at (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf.

Now the Democrats are imitating this losing strategy by infusing liberal politics with religious fervor. They're holding interfaith prayers, opening their platform to religious opponents of abortion, and supporting faith-based initiatives. Ironically, they're doing so in Colorado, the very state that was handed to them as a result of voter disgust with the religious right.

"It's political suicide. The Democrats will only alienate the majority of Americans committed to the principle of secular government," Hsieh said. "Who can those voters support, when both Republicans and Democrats seek to govern by their personal faith rather than rational principles?"

"To protect freedom of religion and conscience, Republican and Democratic leaders must embrace the separation of church and state on principle. Politicians should govern according to the secular principles of individual rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, not religious scripture," Hsieh said.

The Coalition for Secular Government (www.SecularGovernment.us) advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—including freedom of religion and conscience—requires a strict separation of church and state.

Republican Majority for Choice

August 28, 2008

Recently I learned about a national group called the (http://www.gopchoice.org/index.asp) Republican Majority for Choice. From first appearances, this group seems to be headed in the right direction. The organization (http://www.gopchoice.org/about_us.asp) writes, "We are deeply concerned with direction of our Party if it continues to endorse a social agenda that is both intrusive and alienating."

The group even has a (http://www.gopchoice.org/colorado.asp) Colorado affiliate headed by Amanda Mountjoy (whom I don't know). (http://gopchoice.org/chapter_affiliate.asp) Here's what Mountjoy had to say against Amendment 48 (which would define a fertilized egg as a person):

Making changes to our State Constitution is a serious matter that should not be manipulated by special interest groups with a single issue agenda. This is not the place or the vehicle to debate private healthcare decisions. This initiative is a thinly veiled attempt by an extreme minority to impose their views upon the people of Colorado and will lead to big-government control of some of the most complicated choices facing our families.

Consequences of the initiative would be far-reaching and would not only include a ban on abortion, but also a ban on many commonly used forms of birth control. If the proponents of this initiative were truly concerned about reducing abortion in Colorado, as they claim to be, then they would work to forward proven effective, common sense measures like prevention and education. In the past Coloradans have defeated initiatives that interfere with personal freedom, and the Republican Majority for Choice is confident that Colorado voters will again vote to ensure that reproductive healthcare decisions remain between a woman, her family, and her doctor.

The group's (https://gopchoice.electionmall.name/E-DocumentManager/gallery%2FColorado_Chapter%2FNewsletter%20CORMC%20Summer%2008.pdf) newsletter offers a more detailed case against the measure. (Of course, I recommend the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper by Diana Hsieh and me on the subject.)

Unfortunately, the group seems to veer into unprincipled pragmatism at times. For example, the Colorado chapter claims that Amendment 48 "simply goes to far," following the line from the main campaign against. For reasons that Diana and I explain, that's a horrible position. Also, the group (http://www.gopchoice.org/chapter_affiliate.asp) notes, "Thanks to the years of hard work and dedication from the members of RMC Colorado to providing complete and compassionate medical care for survivors of sexual assault, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 60 in to law Thursday, March 15 to mandate hospitals to provide information about emergency contraception (EC) in the emergency room." However, the government has no business dictating policy to hospitals. That said, if hospitals intend to practice faith-based medicine, they should clearly inform their patients of that. So there is some role for the law to play in the matter—as in any case of contract.

Yet, despite some problems with the RMC, the group represents a positive step for the Republican Party, which, under the guidance of the religious right, has become an enemy of liberty and handed Colorado government to the Democrats.

"Pro-Life As Any Candidate Can Be"

August 29, 2008

Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, is as "pro-life as any candidate can be," Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/) reports. However, as Diana Hsieh and I have (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) pointed out, the allegedly "pro-life" position, which would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs for reasons of religious faith, is in fact profoundly anti-life. I didn't need any additional reasons not to vote for McCain, but his selection of Palin reaffirms some of the reasons (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/open-letter-to-senators-mccain-and.html) I've already given.

The religious right is ecstatic, as The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html) reports:

Social conservatives were relieved and highly pleased.

"They're beyond ecstatic," said Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. "This is a home run. She is a reformer governor who is solidly pro-life and a person of deep Christian faith. And she is really one of the bright shining new stars in the Republican firmament."

Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for choosing not to have an abortion after learning two years ago that she was carrying a child with Down's syndrome. "It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community," Mr. Reed said.

Obviously, a Down's baby is precious to his mother and has the same legal rights as anyone else. The choice properly belongs to the woman whether to bring a fetus with Down's to term. However, given the (http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/genetic/down_syndrome.html) severe problems associated with the disease, and the possibility of detecting it early in a pregnancy with modern medicine, certainly it is perfectly moral for a woman to get an abortion under such tragic circumstances. But apparently the religious right grants Palin some sort of special moral status for having a Down's baby, as though tragedy and suffering itself were the mark of goodness and political competence.

I don't think McCain's pick is going to do what he hopes it will do. If anything, it will drive Hillary's supporters to more loyal support of Obama. And it will only further alienate independents and secularist Republicans, who are growing (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/08/churches-should-keep-out-of-politics.html) increasingly weary of faith-based politics.

Comment by Joseph Kellard: "But apparently the religious right grants Palin some sort of special moral status for having a Down's baby, as though tragedy and suffering itself were the mark of goodness and political competence." Ari has hit on something here that got me thinking about the multiculturalists-egalitarians. Their most radical adherents believe that to try to correct a handicapped person's problems, say, a child who is deaf, is an affront. The multiculturalists-egalitarians see nothing wrong with being handicap; in fact, they celebrate it and condemn those who try to correct it. To them, a handicap child should be regarded as different then a perfectly healthy child. Despite the suffering the deaf child would endure, they believe it is horrible to try to correct that suffering. Similarly, the anti-abortionists see nothing wrong with a woman who, rather than abort a fetus because it has Down's syndrome, gives birth to it instead. Here, too, they celebrate the accompanying suffering of the child, who must endure life unable to function healthily, as well as the mother who gives birth to such a child. Both cases are examples of the worship of a deficiency and of suffering, and the denial of anyone who would want to correct these. These is another example in which people on the political left and right are united.

Comment by Chris Sandvick: I'm not sure about Hillary voters being turned off by Palin's selection. At least the initial reaction at hillaryclintonforum.com was very positive towards Palin. My sense is that a lot of Hillary voters are more interested in voting for a woman for president than anything else. Another thing to keep in mind is Palin has a powerful sense of life impact. Her bio is inspiring and her husband worked 2 jobs to help sustain the family and is now the primary caregiver for the children. Some women are going to find that enormously appealing.

Comment by T. J. Welch: The choice of Palin really sealed the deal against McCain for me. I had been considering the idea of voting for him as a way to oppose Obama's fascism, while voting for Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate and Congress so the vote would not be interpreted as an endorsement of conservatism. If McCain had chosen a pro-choice running mate, as he was supposedly contemplating, I would have considered it very seriously. Now that idea is out the window.

Comment by Joseph Kellard: "Her bio is inspiring. . . ." My sister—who like me was raised to be a liberal Democrat, but unlike me generally remains one—finds Palin and her life story very appealing. While she never would vote for a Republican, she finds Obama to be a fraud, an American-hating empty suit, and actually has considered, ever so hesitantly, voting for Palin-McCain (note the order). Sept. 11 changed my sister—in fact, it was the bombing of the USS Cole when her liberal worldview really began to change. I don't think that would have been possible without my (Objectivist) influence for several years before these events. I've at least got my sister to recognize what Obama is and isn't. While I'm not voting for either Obama or McCain, I'm glad to see that I've influenced her enough to at least get her to consider other options, rather that voting Democrat no matter who is on the ticket.

Why Harry Potter Fans Should Read Ayn Rand

September 1, 2008

This article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080901/COLUMNISTS/808319989/1021) appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

September 1, 2008

Why Harry Potter fans should read Ayn Rand

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

As September 1 marks the first day of school at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, we decided to ignore Colorado's political scene for the moment and focus on something truly important: great literature.

We've both long been fans of Ayn Rand's works. In fact, when Ari was young, Linn read aloud Anthem as a bed-time story. Anthem is Rand's novelette about a dystopian future in which people are known by numbers, not names, and the word "I" has been outlawed. The hero of the story rediscovers electricity in secret and eventually escapes with his beloved to freedom. The book inspired Ari's preoccupation with liberty.

More recently, Ari has grown passionate about another novelist: J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series. Ari has even written a book of literary criticism called Values of Harry Potter; see (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) ValuesOfHarryPotter.com. In its focus on the heroic valuer, the book explores Rowling's themes of courage, independence, and free will, then critically examines her minor themes of self-sacrifice and immortality.

Ari's shared passion for Rand and Rowling is no coincidence. The two authors explore many of the same themes and offer their readers gripping, tightly plotted stories filled with great heroes, dastardly villains, and intriguing ideas. Fans of Rowling easily could fall in love with Rand's works, and vice versa.

Both novelists have written great Romantic works. In her introduction to The Fountainhead, Rand writes that Romanticism "deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence." That helps explain why Rand's books remain strong sellers decades after their initial release and why Rowling's books have appealed to readers across continents in many languages. These are not stories of the neighbor next door and his neuroses. These are grand epics of monumental clashes between good and evil.

As Ari argues in Values of Harry Potter, the central theme of Rowling's novels is the heroic fight for life-promoting values. Harry and his allies fight courageously to protect their lives, loved ones, futures, and liberties from the vicious tyrant Lord Voldemort. For example, in Sorcerer's Stone, Harry gives a fiery speech to his friends Ron and Hermione, persuading them to take action against Voldemort to save their lives and world.

Rand's characters, too, fight passionately for their values. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark refuses to compromise his integrity as an architect, even if that means he must work in a granite quarry or blow up a building that has ripped off and debased his design. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt and Francisco d'Anconia walk away from their normal lives in order to finally subvert the evil men and ideas taking over the world.

After learning he's a wizard, Harry takes the Hogwarts Express to a magical world filled with wonder, possibility, and great champions like Professor Dumbledore. Hogwarts is Harry's escape from the oppressive Dursleys. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart's Transconinental Railroad also symbolizes movement into a world of near-mythical champions such as the steel-producer Hank Rearden.

While Harry has Hogwarts, Dagny discovers Galt's Gulch, the place where her heroes live. After Dagny crash lands her plane in the Gulch, she experiences, "This was the world as she had expected to see it at sixteen... This was her world, she thought, this was the way men were meant to be and to face their existence..." It is to this spirit of youthful passion and confidence that both novelists remain true.

As Rand (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freewill.html) explains, free will is the foundation of Romantic literature, because free will is what enables a person's "formation of his own character and the course of action he pursues in the physical world." Because of the fact of free will, people can form or reform their characters and act for their values. This is the premise behind any compelling plot, which depends on the characters making and then enacting choices toward some goal. It is no surprise, then, that Dumbledore endorses free will, saying "it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be."

Rowling and Rand share an interest in other themes as well. Both authors love liberty and hate tyrants; both John Galt and Harry Potter work outside the established government to fight those wielding power corruptly. Both authors present fiercely independent heroes who refuse to unquestioningly follow self-proclaimed authorities.

Of course the writers also have their differences. For example, while Rand solidly rejects religion, Rowling includes the Christian elements of self-sacrifice and life after death in her novels. Yet their similarities are more intriguing.

If you haven't yet read these novels, then you are in for an enthralling and potentially life-altering adventure. It is yours to discover your own Hogwarts or Galt's Gulch, not merely in the realm of imagination, but in your daily life.

Pelosi Should Endorse Separation of Church and State

September 3, 2008

I sent the following letter to The Denver Post in reply to an (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10310804) article by Kathleen Parker (which is (http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/08/27/pope_pelosi_at_the_gate) reproduced also at TownHall.com). As I didn't hear back from the Post, I'm publishing the letter here.

Pelosi Should Endorse Separation of Church and State

Kathleen Parker is right about one thing ("Pope Pelosi at the gate," August 27): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought not invoke faith to answer criticisms from the religious right. Instead, she should endorse the separation of church and state and refuse to enact laws based on religious dogma.

Parker's view that "human life begins at conception" implies support for Colorado's Amendment 48; she's saying that fertilized eggs should be granted full legal rights. But that measure, if fully implemented, would impose life in prison or the death penalty for women and their doctors for abortion, outlaw popular fertility treatments, ban the birth-control pill and other forms of birth control, ban promising medical research, and impose severe police controls over our sex lives. (Diana Hsieh and I critique the measure in (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us.)

Notice Parker's missing link: she jumps from the obvious truth that "human development begins at fertilization" to the patent absurdity that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a born infant, with the same rights. That is a gap that only religious faith can fill. Democrats and Republicans alike should reject such faith-based politics.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

ARC: Let Doctors Protect Conscience by Contract

September 3, 2008

A few days ago, I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/08/republican-majority-for-choice.html) criticized efforts to force hospitals to abandon their faith-based practices, however much I disapprove of those practices. Now the snazzy new Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC) has produced a (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20991) release that aptly explains the reasons for my view. Thomas Bowden said:

[T]he law should recognize each individual's right to deal, or refuse to deal, with others on a voluntary basis.

For example, a doctor has the right to refuse an employment offer from a Catholic hospital that forbids contraceptives and abortions. But if he takes the job, he has no right to force the hospital to abandon its religious taboos and allow him to perform abortions. Likewise, a hospital has the right to hire only those doctors willing to prescribe contraception and provide abortions. If one of those doctors refuses to perform such services on moral grounds, he must take the contractual consequences.

Patients have the same rights as doctors and hospitals to set their own terms of trade. A pregnant woman contemplating abortion has the right to seek treatment at a hospital whose doctors are unencumbered by religious superstitions about ensoulment at conception. But if that hospital denies her admission, she has no right to demand that the Catholic hospital down the street abort her fetus.

The correct path out of the "conscience controversy" over abortions and contraceptives is not to adopt new regulations creating "provider conscience rights." The solution is for government to recognize and protect the individual rights of all participants in the health-care system. Doctors, hospitals, and patients should be allowed to deal with each other by voluntary agreement, with government's only role to enforce contracts and prevent fraud.

However, I would again point out that implicit contractual understanding could require patient notification. If I walk into a hospital, normally I expect to be offered the full range of medical information and treatment options. If a hospital refuses to offer some information or treatment on religious grounds, I need to know that. At least a hospital has an obligation to relate its relevant policies so that patients can make informed decisions.

Support The Undercurrent

September 3, 2008

(http://the-undercurrent.com/) The Undercurrent asked me to spread the word about the publication, which I'm happy to do:

The Undercurrent (TU) is an independent, student-run Objectivist newsletter distributed twice a year to college campuses across America. TU is currently looking for distributors and donors for its fall edition, and will stop taking orders on or about September 22, 2008.

If you would like to distribute, please visit (http://the-undercurrent.com/subscribe/) http://the-undercurrent.com/subscribe/ and buy your copies of TU today. If money is an issue, please contact Guy Barnett, our head of distribution, at guy**AT**the-undercurrent**DOT**com. There is limited funding from donors for students who want to buy and distribute TU but cannot afford to do so. If you're part of an Objectivist campus club, you may want to see if your college will fund distribution of TU as a club activity.

If you would like to donate, please visit (http://the-undercurrent/donate/) http://the-undercurrent/donate/ and contribute directly using PayPal. ...

Spreading rational ideas on college campuses is critical to making this world a better place. Your assistance is necessary for the achievement of that goal.

Thank you for your support.

"Women Should Be At Home With Their Kids Full Time"

September 4, 2008

Yes, welcome to the 21st Century.

An (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10375551) article in today's Denver Post reviews some of the criticism of Sarah Palin coming from the religious right.

Dr. Laura Schlesinger said, "What kind of role model is a woman whose fifth child was recently born with a serious issue, Down syndrome, and then goes back to the job of governor within days of the birth?"

Kendal Unruh, "a former board member of the Colorado Christian Coalition and a delegate at the Republican National Convention," said, "I believe women should be at home with their kids full time. But I'm not a dictator, so when they have made that choice, then I unequivocally support them."

So, in a nutshell, here's the religious right's advice for women. 1. Absolutely do not have sex unless you're married. 2. At most, use only birth control that cannot possibly hinder the implantation of a fertilized egg. 3. If you get pregnant, regardless of the circumstances, you absolutely must have the baby, even if you were raped, and even if your health or the health of the embryo is at risk, except perhaps if you're on the brink of death. 4. Once you bear a child, you should stay home to raise the child, rather than have a career, but perhaps you can have a career that advances the agenda of the religious right.

Comment by Neil Parille: The religious right is fairly diverse on some of these issues. Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God denomination, which has always had women pastors. The evangelical community is probably split 50/50 on the women in the ministry issue. Given that, I imagine then that many don't have a problem with women working outside the home. If my wife and I had 5 children, and one was recently born with special needs & if my 17 year old daughter just got pregnant out of wedlock, I think I'd decline an offer to be VP.

Comment: They should be at home with kids. Look at how messed up kids have become since the 50's. Women now graduate high school and do not even know how to turn on an oven. Also, I believe the majority of women have lost their motherly instincts, I see many more caring fathers out there. The women are now more concerned about friends, work or their facebook account, rather than their family or just keeping a house clean.

With Palin, McCain Ignores Colorado Warning

September 4, 2008

The following article has been offered as a non-exclusive op-ed by the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/) Coalition for Secular Government.

With Palin, McCain Ignores Colorado Warning

by Ari Armstrong

"I have to win here if I'm going to be the next president of the United States," John McCain (http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_10049269) told a Colorado crowd in July. The fact that the Democrats came to Colorado for their convention also proves the presidential importance of the Interior West, a region known for its independent streak and partisan upheavals.

However, McCain seems not to have learned the political lessons of the Interior West, despite the fact that he's from Arizona. By selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate to attract the evangelical vote, McCain risks alienating the independent voters and non-sectarian Republicans he needs to win.

Recent polling (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/930/religion-politics) results from the Pew Research Center indicate that most Americans now think churches should keep out of politics. Even half of conservatives share this view. The Interior West is particularly leery about faith-based politics; Pew (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/07/interiorwest.html) results from 2005 examined by (http://www.ryansager.com/blog/) Ryan Sager suggest that 59 percent of residents think "government is getting too involved in the issue of morality." Yet faith-based politics is one of Palin's signature issues.

Palin (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0) endorsed the teaching of creationism in tax-funded schools before softening her stance on the issue. She ardently opposes abortion, (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/) describing herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be," (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html) apparently even in cases of rape, incest, or health problems. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4LjsfWbZLA) Speaking to a church as governor, Palin said that it's "God's will" that she help build an energy pipeline; she added that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God." Political reform, Palin argued, "doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Given McCain's desire to win Colorado, he might have examined why this once solidly Republican state is currently governed by Democrats. One central reason is the domination of the Republican Party in the state by the religious right.

Democrats captured the final branch of state government in 2006 when Bill Ritter defeated Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez in the governor's race. Ritter was accomplished in his own right as the Denver District Attorney but lacked high-level political experience. While Beauprez's campaign suffered a variety of failings, Beauprez's own commitment to faith-based politics, and his selection of a running mate of the same cloth, hurt him badly.

Beauprez himself (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) opposed abortion and favored faith-based welfare. His running mate, Janet Rowland, (http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=405) shared those views and had also come out in favor of teaching creationism in tax-funded schools. When asked about the separation of church and state, Rowland replied, "We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Such expressions rubbed independent-minded Westerners the wrong way.

Yet McCain is following a similar path. On his official web page, McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) says that his ultimate aim is "ending abortion." His running mate, like Rowland, shares that view and favored tax-funded religious education. Palin, like Rowland, would leave Americans without freedom from religious law. Will the team's commitment to faith-based politics be too much for voters in the Interior West to swallow?

The McCain-Palin ticket has a lot going for it that the Beauprez-Rowland ticket did not. McCain is a decorated military veteran with a lengthy career in the Senate. Palin is credible on energy, appealing to low-tax conservatives, and friendly toward gun owners. She has a record as a reformer, and she's an attractive, vibrant, and poised speaker.

Moreover, the left's shrill personal attacks against Palin may serve only to evoke public sympathy for her and energize her supporters. The left's complaints about Palin's lack of experience may underscore their own candidate's inexperience, as Barack Obama tends to come off as a glorified motivational speaker. Yet the Obama-friendly left, in its attempt to itself cozy up to the evangelical vote, shies away from criticizing the McCain-Palin ticket over the issue of separation of church and state.

Nevertheless, as independent and traditionally Republican voters evaluate McCain and Palin on their own merits, rather than merely as the alternative to Obama, many will grow concerned over the pair's commitment to faith-based politics. This will cost McCain votes and other forms of support.

McCain may have energized the religious right, but in doing so he has brought faith-based politics to the forefront of his campaign, leaving freedom-minded independents and secular Republicans without a candidate they can support. The question remaining is which presidential candidate will make them more fearful.

Ari Armstrong is the editor of FreeColorado.com and a co-author of (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us, a paper criticizing the Colorado proposal to define a fertilized egg as a person.

Did Dobson Break Vow to God?

September 5, 2008

The AP (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/04/group-says-focus-founder-violated-pledge-god-backi/) reports that eight members of American Right to Life Action (ARLA) were "escorted" from the premises of Focus on the Family. But isn't Dobson the Grand Poobah of the religious right? What's going on?

ARLA (http://artlaction.com/release/20080903/artla-rebukes-dobson-breaking-his-pledge-god) explains:

American RTL Action, the political 527 group, is exposing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson for violating his public pledge in which he invoked the name of God, by declaring that he is voting for John McCain. ARTL members will protest Dr. Dobson at his headquarters at 8655 Explorer Drive in Colorado Springs on Thur. Sept. 4, beginning at 7:45 a.m.

On April 28, 1990 at the Washington D.C. Rally for Life on video and to hundreds of thousands of Christians, Dr. Dobson stated, "I want to give a pledge to you on a political level... I have determined that for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby." (See pledge video below [at the linked page].) James Dobson has endorsed John McCain for president, a Republican who has recently voted to authorize funding to kill some children by surgical abortion.

American RTL Action calls upon Jim Daly, the president of Focus, to take down the video of Dr. Dobson's pledge which still plays for tourists at their Welcome Center. Dr. Dobson has broken the public oath which he repeated over a period of years including on his Focus on the Family radio program in March of 1995 saying, "I am committed never again to cast a vote for a politician who would kill one innocent baby," referring to the rape and incest 'exceptions,' "which are a window to the soul of a 'pro-life' candidate," said ARTL Action president Steve Curtis.

"John McCain funds the killing of countless children," said the group's director of research Darrell Birkey, "for example by voting to allocate monies on Oct. 27, 2005 for tax-funded surgical abortion if the baby's father is a criminal, that is, a rapist." The official Senate.gov site documents McCain's Yea vote on the Health and Human Services Appropriations Public Law 109-149 and the Government Printing Office documents that McCain's vote authorized funding for surgical abortion to kill an unborn child whose father is a criminal as the law states, SEC. 507. (a) "funds are appropriated in this Act" that includes coverage of abortion, SEC. 508. (a) (1) "if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."

[[Outside brackets in original:] Of course National RTL misleads Christians on Republican candidates by ignoring their pro-abortion votes; and they claim that McCain: "Voted consistently against federal funding of abortion," by ignoring his votes that funded abortion; funded dissecting the tiniest children; gave millions to Planned Parenthood; etc. A NRTL 100% rating is a near-certain indicator that a Republican is pro-choice with exceptions.]

"Dr. Dobson is violating the pledge he took before God," said Birkey, "by voting for John McCain. Both the Sarah Palin distraction, and the candidate's rhetoric to Rick Warren claiming he believes that human rights begin at conception, are belied by John McCain's long tolerance of chemical abortifacients and funding of the dissection of the tiniest embryonic boys and girls."

"In violating his 1990 pledge in which he invoked the name of God, Dr. Dobson has lost the moral authority to speak for Christians," said Curtis. "He can speak for Republicans who do not fear God, but he cannot speak for the Body of Christ. Jim Daly, please remove that video of Dr. Dobson's broken pledge from the Focus on the Family Welcome Center; you dishonor the Lord as you portray Dr. Dobson as principled and as keeping his oath before God."

Last week ARTL Action unfurled the massive Sheets Of Shame abortion protest sign on a mountain overlooking the DNC in Denver. "American RTL will expose both Republican and Democratic politicians who advocate the killing of unborn children," said Curtis, who is also a former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. And ARTL Action reminds Dr. Dobson that Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount warned His followers against invoking God's name in an oath, and regardless, forbade them from breaking their word. In the New Testament the apostle James wrote, "Do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No,' lest you fall into judgment."

John McCain repeatedly votes to give millions of dollars to foreign and domestic abortion providers including Planned Parenthood. One week after pro-abortion Rudi Giuliani dropped out of the primary race, Republicans for Choice endorsed John McCain. And his Sanctity of Life campaign webpage doesn't even mention the words conception, rape, incest, fertilization, nor the phrase human life amendment. Further, McCain refused to co-sponsor U.S. Senator Roger Wicker's life-saving S.3111 and refuses to endorse Colorado's historic Personhood amendment initiative which is on their statewide November ballot. "McCain is as Jesus warned in Matthew 7:15," said Birkey, "a wolf in sheep's clothing, manipulating Christians into voting for someone who continues to kill the innocent preborn."

American RTL Action has a test for a Christian to rank his own loyalty to God as compared to Republican politics. A believer need only consider whether he approves of Dr. Dobson violating the pledge he made before God to increase the chance of victory for a Republican in November. As Jesus said, "No man can have two masters," yet Focus on the Family leads Christians to worship the Republican Party as an idol. American Right To Life Action urges everyone, please trust and obey God above all.

Please read this (http://artlaction.com/files/DobsonPledgeLtr.pdf) letter from Focus on the Family
which admits that Dr. Dobson has compromised on the pledge he made before God and then, sadly, tries to justify that blatant sin.

The first thing to notice (other than the fact that the members of ARLA are crazy) is that Dobson didn't actually make a vow to God, as the headline over the AP article claims. (If he had, I don't regard the breaking of a pledge to an imaginary being as quite as bad as breaking a pledge to a real person.) So Dobson's support of McCain and Palin, both of whom oppose abortion, when their opponent is hesitantly pro-choice, is a "blatant sin," according to ARLA. Talk about over the top. (I agree that Dobson has done wrong, but his fault is pushing faith-based politics, including abortion bans.)

ARLA wants to ban abortion from the moment of conception, even in cases of rape or incest.

Pay attention, people! The religious right is serious about banning abortion. (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Deadly serious.

I'm Comcastic

September 5, 2008

Today feels like a slow, rainy fall day, so I'm going to take it easy and review some of my recent shopping experiences.

Despite the fact that I was a loyal Qwest customer, I'm now signed up with Comcast. Why? Qwest doen't offer internet service at my new address! Which is unbelievable. But, despite Comcast's reputation for poor customer service, the outfit did very well for me. So far, I'm a pleased customer. Nevermind that the company's slogan, "Comcastic," rhymes with spastic and bombastic.

I was in a hurry the other day at the grocery store, so I quickly bought a half-gallon of "All Natural," "Made With Real Oranges" Minute Maid. Well, make that "All Natural Flavors." Mostly it's corn juice, which I promptly poured down the drain. Yuck. I guess high fructose corn syrup is a "natural" drink, in the same way that fly soup is "natural."

During the same shopping trip, I noticed a publication on the stands called "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Palmistry." Yup.

I enjoy Flight of the Conchord's robot song, in which "it is the year 2000." Well, I recently picked up a used book called "The Year 2000," published in 1967. (It cost $9.95 for a hardback back then.) The book anticipates "increased Sensate (empirical, this-worldly, secular, humanistic, pragmatic, utilitarian, contractual, epicurean or hedonistic, and the like) cultures..." The authors couldn't have been more wrong about that one. That's what happens when "empirical, this-worldly, secular" is equated with pragmatic and hedonistic.

Left Powerless Against Religious Right

September 8, 2008

Ultimately the left is powerless against the religious right, because the left has no coherent philosophy of its own. This point is illustrated perfectly by a September 7 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/us/politics/08campaign.html) article in The New York Times.

What is remarkable is that, of the four people currently running for president or vice president, three of the four believe, for reasons of religious faith, that a fertilized egg has the status of a person. "...I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception," Joseph Biden told "Meet the Press." The difference, the Times summarizes, is that Biden "would not impose his personal views on others, and had indeed voted against curtailing abortion rights and against criminalizing abortion."

And Obama's view? "...I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions."

In other words, all four candidates believe the matter is to be decided by religious faith. Two of the candidates take their views to their logical conclusions and call for a total ban on abortion. (Regardless of whether McCain voted to fund abortions in cases of rape and incest, his (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) official, ultimate goal is "ending abortion.")

Biden says the Catholic Church is correct on the matter but then refuses to enact this view in law. Ultimately, who's going to win this contest: one side says outright that abortion is murder and should be banned, while the other side implies abortion is murder yet should not be banned.

Of course the faith-based view depends on obfuscation; as Diana Hsieh and I have (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) pointed out, technically life precedes conception, and regardless that is not the standard for personhood. But Biden lacks the integrity to talk in anything but code on the matter.

The religious right will fare even better against Obama's line. When both sides claim the matter is properly theological in nature, and one side claims to know the theological answer while the other side claims ignorance, the first side will maintain the upper hand.

The left's powerlessness against the religious right mirrors the right's powerlessness against the welfare-statist left. When McCain talks about sacrifice and serving something "greater than yourself," he cannot withstand calls to sacrifice people to the "greater" cause of the national "welfare."

While McCain would sacrifice the interests of couples to fertilized eggs, Obama would sacrifice producers to others' "welfare." What neither left nor right upholds today is the principle that each individual has the right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Persepolis, Virgin Territory

September 8, 2008

Recently my wife and I watched two films on DVD that we quite enjoyed.

The first is (http://www.virginterritory-themovie.com/) Virgin Territory, very loosely inspired by Boccaccio's Decameron. Completely ignore the stupid publicity blurb that accompanies the movie. This is pop comedy, nearly soft-porn with its nudity, yet beneath it all there is a sweet love story. The cast is lovely and talented; for the first time ever, I'm convinced that Hayden Christensen (of Darth Vader fame) can act. If you approach it as a sexual fairy tale, rather than as a period piece, it can be fun.

The second film is considerably more serious in tone and content: (http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/persepolis/) Persepolis tells the story of a girl who grows up in Iran as witness to revolution and war. It is based on the life of Marjane Satrapi, who also co-wrote and co-directed the film. (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/07/nafisi-reads-lolita-in-tehran.html) Again I am reminded of what went wrong in Iran, a nation torn between tyrants, Marxists, and theocrats. Be sure to watch the special features, which I found as interesting as the film, as they show what happened to Satrapi after she moved to France. One thing that struck me about this film is the strong American influence it reveals, even as told by a woman from Iran living in France who doesn't seem to have any special sympathy for the U.S. We watched the French-language version with English subtitles (the default on the video we rented), which I recommend, as I'm not persuaded the English dubbing was as good. I really like the original voices, and the animation was completed around the French recordings.

Am. 59 Would Impose New Forever Net Tax Hike

September 8, 2008

A version of this article (http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/2008/sep/07/not-safe/) appeared in the September 7 Colorado Daily.

Am. 59 would impose new forever net tax hike

by Ari Armstrong

Those wishing to forcibly transfer more money from those who earn it to those who want it constantly review the benefits (real or imagined) of higher tax spending. What they generally ignore are the costs.

Sure, when the government transfers money from Alice to Ben, Ben gets to spend the money on something he wants. But Alice has less to spend on her needs and those of her family, and those with whom Alice does business also suffer.

When people evaluate economic opportunities, they tend to move to where they can keep more of what they earn—to spend, invest, or give away as they see fit—and live and work as they deem best, rather than as politicians demand. We Coloradans enjoy a relatively strong economy in large part because it remains a relatively free economy. Higher taxes threaten to alienate vibrant businesses, entrepreneurs, and young workers.

Higher taxes also reduce liberty. People have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Regardless of whether politicians and activists mean well in forcing some people to surrender their money to others, the practice is morally wrong.

This November, Colorado voters will decide whether to respect individual rights or to expand the tyranny of the majority when they vote on Amendment 59, a new, forever net tax hike.

Notably, Amendment 59 is brought to us by much of the same crew that brought us Referendum C in 2005. Legislative Council publishes a couple of interesting documents online about Referendum C. The Council's projection for the net tax hike for the 2005 Blue Book was over (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/2005/ballot/2005BluebookforInternet.PDF) $3.7 billion for five years. The new projection is (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/lcs/focus/2008/08forecast0620.pdf) $6.1 billion. Moreover, the measure will permanently increase state spending.

Yet, even though Colorado voters approved a net tax hike just a few years ago expected to raise over $2 billion more than supporters originally suggested, the higher-tax crowd now want billions more. And let us not forget about the tax-funded FasTracks of 2004, the expected costs of which have (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/03/half-of-fastracks-soaring-cost-tied-to-north-dia/) exploded from $4.7 billion to $7.9 billion.

Don't be fooled by claims that the new measure is just about education. As one representative of the "yes" campaign noted in a September 1 e-mail, the measure (which advocates are calling Savings Accounts for Education) would "relieve pressure on higher education, health care, transportation and other core services." In other words, because the new taxes go to education, the legislature can transfer other funds from education to whatever it wants.

Also beware of (http://www.coloradosafe.org/learn) claims that the measure "does not increase tax rates." The way that the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights works is that the state must refund taxes that are collected over the limit. So, while Amendment 59 would not impact the rates on taxes collected, it would impose a massive net tax hike by wiping out the refunds.

At this point, Colorado taxpayers might reasonably ask how much is enough. Is there ever a point at which taxes are too high? The simple fact is that there will always be those who cannot afford to buy everything they want with the money they earn or solicit from voluntary contributions, and who turn to politicians to get the rest.

The Colorado tax budget could double, triple, or expand ten fold, and still the taxers would cry that more still is needed.

Ari Armstrong is a guest writer for the Independence Institute and the editor of FreeColorado.com.

Update: As an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/08/amendment-59-meant-to-save-tax-surplus-for/) article in today's Rocky Mountain News points out (though I didn't have space to include the points in the op-ed), Amendment 59 would also phase out Amendment 23, which automatically increases K-12 spending every year, and set up a rainy-day fund, yet those reforms are possible without the net tax hike. Andrew Romanoff and his Democratic pals are essentially threatening Colorado voters: give us more tax money, or we'll refuse to fix existing problems.

Berny Morson, author the newspaper article, also reports, "Exactly how much money is involved is by no means clear. The legislative staff's five-year financial projection shows no excess revenue that would be refunded to taxpayers, Romanoff said. But opponents say the amount could be substantial when the economy again hits good times." Colorado voters should remember that the measure wipes out the TABOR refund forever.

Palin and Contraception

September 9, 2008

Does Sarah Palin approve of all common forms of birth control? David Harsanyi of The Denver Post (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/09/08/another-lie-about-sarah-palin/) claims that Senator Barbara Boxer lied about Palin by claiming she is "against birth control." Harsanyi's claim was no surprise to me, as I'd already read she supports birth control. However, this does not address the issue that some forms of birth control may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, as Diana Hsieh and I discuss in our (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper about Amendment 48.

I sent Harsanyi the following note:

Dave,

I knew that Palin was fine with contraception.

However, as Diana and I point out in our paper about 48, some forms of contraception, such as the pill and IUDs, may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (IUDs also increase the risk of medically-necessary abortions.) Given that you're a journalist with a large paper, you might be able to ask her a) whether she thinks those forms of contraception can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and b) whether they should therefore be banned.

As much as I appreciate you taking the time to debunk false claims about Palin, you're missing the real story here. Surely a guy who (http://www.nannystatebook.com/buy/) rails against the nanny state would be interested in proposals to ban the birth-control pill. And if Palin indeed approves of those forms of birth control, how does that mesh with her view that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization? Either way, it's an important story.

Please let me know what you come up with.

Thanks, -Ari

To read more about the issue, please see pages 3-5 of the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper. To repeat but one point there, Ortho Tri-Cyclen (registered) claims in its prescription literature that it "reduce[s] the likelihood of implantation."

There is a very real possibility that Palin will be nominating Supreme Court justices at some point; I wouldn't be surprised if she ran for president in eight years, and I wouldn't be too surprised if she ran in four years. And the fact that McCain chose her indicates that he's more than willing to "reach out" to the religious right. (Remember that McCain's ultimate (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm) stated goal is "ending abortion.")

It's time for Palin's supporters to stop crying about the left's treatment of Palin—as bad as that's been—and start discussing Palin's actual views.

The Collectivist President

September 9, 2008

I don't know who's going to win in November, but it's clear the victor will be a collectivist. As Yaron Brook (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21175) puts it:

When McCain and Obama call for "putting country first," they are not simply asking us to love our country. They are urging us, as McCain once put it, to place service to the nation above the pursuit of our own values and happiness. This is collectivism, the doctrine that the individual exists to serve society and that his interests should be sacrificed to those of the group.

This is the exact opposite of America's founding ideal. In the American system, it is the government, not the individual, who is the servant. The government's role is to protect our individual rights so that each of us is free to pursue our own lives and happiness. No group--not even society as a whole--can force us to sacrifice for its ends.

Tragically, for the better part of a century, America has been moving away from the individualist ideals of the Founders and toward collectivism. Just consider the crushing tax burden we all suffer under to fuel an endless list of welfare entitlements in the name of the "public good." ... None of this is compatible with the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Instead of leaders who "put country first" we need leaders who will put freedom first.

Craig Biddle (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mcbama-vs-america.asp) summarizes:

Looking past the particular programs of McCain and Obama, and viewing their goals in terms of the purpose of government presumed by these goals, we can see that both candidates hold that the purpose of government is to manage the economy, to regulate businesses, to redistribute wealth, to bring freedom or democracy to foreigners, and to defer to the will of others on matters of American security. ...

Both McCain and Obama hold that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving or deferring to others; thus, both hold that the individual—whether a CEO, a plumber, a doctor, or a soldier—must either sacrifice or be sacrificed for the sake of the "collective" or the "greater good" or the world at large.

Titanic Deck Chairs has a pretty good (http://titanicdeckchairs.blogspot.com/2008/09/visual-guide-to-election.html) graphic that aptly summarizes the "contest" between McCain and Obama.

Biden Invites Catholic "Correction"

September 10, 2008

A couple of days ago, I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/left-powerless-against-religious-right.html) pointed out that, by making abortion a matter of religious faith, Senator Joseph Biden empowered those who would outlaw the practice. Now Cardinal Justin F. Rigali and Bishop William Lori have issued a (http://www.bishoploriblog.org/?p=129) statement "correcting" Biden on the issue. (I learned of this (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/biden-bishops-abortion/) from the AP.)

Let's start at the beginning. Here's what Biden (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26590488/page/4/) said on "Meet the Press" on September 7:

[When does life begin?] I'd say, "Look, I know when it begins for me." It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others—who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life—I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, "Well, what about fascism?" Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism's all right? Fascism isn't a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea. ...

[W]hat [I] voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that's existed. Back in "Summa Theologia," when Thomas Aquinas wrote "Summa Theologia," he said there was no—it didn't occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that's the reason I haven't. But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person's God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a --and what we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

So basically Biden's argument is that, while the issue properly is a matter of religious faith, people disagree about religious matters, so abortion ought not be outlawed. In other words, subjectivism trumps faith. Biden has no principles.

Following is most of the reply by Rigali and Lori (emphasis omitted):

[T]he Senator's claim that the beginning of human life is a "personal and private" matter of religious faith, one which cannot be "imposed" on others, does not reflect the truth of the matter. The Church recognizes that the obligation to protect unborn human life rests on the answer to two questions, neither of which is private or specifically religious.

The first is a biological question: When does a new human life begin? When is there a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment? While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception... The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact.

The second is a moral question, with legal and political consequences: Which living members of the human species should be seen as having fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be killed?

The Catholic Church's answer is: Everybody. No human being should be treated as lacking human rights, and we have no business dividing humanity into those who are valuable enough to warrant protection and those who are not. This is not solely a Catholic teaching, but a principle of natural law accessible to all people of good will.

The framers of the Declaration of Independence pointed to the same basic truth by speaking of inalienable rights, bestowed on all members of the human race not by any human power, but by their Creator. Those who hold a narrower and more exclusionary view have the burden of explaining why we should divide humanity into those who have moral values and those who do not and why their particular choice of where to draw that line can be sustained in a pluralistic society.

Such views pose a serious threat to the dignity and rights of other poor and vulnerable members of the human family who need and deserve our respect and protection.

While in past centuries biological knowledge was often inaccurate, modern science leaves no excuse for anyone to deny the humanity of the unborn child. Protection of innocent human life is not an imposition of personal religious conviction but a demand of justice.

Given Biden's concession that Catholic teaching defines the issue, he's powerless to answer this "correction."

But notice the weakness of Rigali and Lori's argument. They claim quite correctly that it is "objective fact" that a fertilized egg is "a new living organism of the human species, distinct from mother and father and ready to develop and mature if given a nurturing environment." (A fertilized egg is not "distinct" from the mother in that it exists wholly inside of her and lives from her nutrients.) But then they make the faith-based jump in claiming that a fertilized egg is a "human being" in the sense of personhood. What is their reason for this jump? It is the "Catholic Church's answer." That's it. There's no factual basis for the claim, no chain of reasoning. Only an appeal to authority. Thus, the pair's claim that their position is not "specifically religious" is patently false. Without religious faith in the "Catholic Church's answer," their case completely falls apart.

As Diana Hsieh and I argue in (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"

No one doubts that a fertilized egg is alive, that it contains human DNA, or that it has the potential to develop into a born person (assuming it implants and develops properly in a woman's uterus). The fundamental question is whether these facts are sufficient to establish a fertilized egg as the moral equivalent of an infant, worthy of full legal protections. ...

In fact, the advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a "being," in the sense that it is an entity. That's also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn't make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

So is a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus a person with a right to life, like an infant? No. ... From the moment of fertilization to its implantation in the womb a few days later, the embryo consists of a few largely undifferentiated cells. It is invisible to the naked eye. It has no human organs, and no human form. It has no brain, and so no capacity for awareness or feelings. It is far more similar to a few skin cells than an infant. Moreover, it cannot develop into a baby on its own: its survival beyond a few days requires successful implantation in the lining of the woman's uterus. If it fails to do that, it will be flushed from her body without anyone ever knowing of its existence.

Read the rest of the case in the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper.

Both Obama and Biden couch the issue in terms of moral subjectivism. Their religious critics reply with appeals to faith and religious authority. But neither subjectivism nor religious faith can provide an objective basis for moral decisions. The fact that Biden is wrong does not make Rigali and Lori right, or vice versa. Both sides must be rejected in favor of an objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

Lipstick On a Pig

September 10, 2008

Right now the "story" about Obama's remark, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," which the McCain camp is pretending referenced Palin, is the top story at FoxNews.com. It is the second link down at RockyMountainNews.com. It is the main story at DenverPost.com.

You can put lipstick on the pig of faux journalism, but it's still a pig.

Where's the news story about Palin's views of contraception, including that which may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus? Where's the news story about Palin's former remarks about foreign policy? About welfare? About the relationship between church and state? About anything that, you know, actually matters?

Burton's Campaign of Obfuscation

September 11, 2008

Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, intentionally obfuscates the facts of the measure.

Burton told the Rocky Mountain News, "They [critics] are missing the core issue of when life begins. That is what this is trying to establish."

Baloney.

Amendment 48 does not say, "Life begins with conception." As Diana Hsieh and I review in our (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper, the measure states, "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." Diana and I point out the implications of the measure at length. Moreover, Buron's comment is factually wrong, as the paper points out.

Diana and I discuss the nature of personhood at some length and explain why a fertilized egg does not qualify. Perhaps Burton would care to reply to those arguments rather than repeat her platitudes.

A September 9 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/09/preferences-personhood-debated/) story from the Rocky quotes more of Burton's views as expressed on KBDI-Channel 12:

Why this amendment is needed: "It recognizes the advances in modern medical science, which tell us that human life really does begin at the moment of conception. At that moment we have unique DNA that makes this a truly unique individual. Amendment 48 empowers the citizens of Colorado to take this issue into their own hands and to direct the elected officials and judges on how important life decisions should be made."

Details, such as the legal status of fertilized eggs in test tubes, can be addressed later: "What this amendment does is, it provides a common-sense starting point. Before we can deal with issues like that or the ones that they talk of—birth control and in vitro fertilization—those are issues that will be dealt with later on in the democratic process. Before we can do that, we first of all have to lay a foundation."

The amendment values life: "We can all agree that life has been cheapened in our society... People, especially in my generation, are tired of that. We want to restore value to human life and say that every person truly counts."

At least here Burton makes a slightly more sophisticated argument regarding unique DNA. However, unique DNA does not qualify something as a person, for reasons that Diana and I discuss. Burton equivocates on the term "individual," which in some contexts implies an individual person (as opposed to an individual entity).

Obviously Amendment 48, if implemented, would ban abortions in all cases except perhaps extreme risk to the mother's life. (It would be pleasant if Burton would mention whether she thinks any level of risk to the mother's life would justify an abortion.) But for Burton to punt on the issues of birth control and fertility treatments is grossly irresponsible. Amendment 48 has clear implications for such things, and for Burton to ignore those consequences further demonstrates that it is she who would cheapen the lives of actual persons.

A Problem with Tax-Funded Libraries

September 11, 2008

Ben Boychuk (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/11/boychuk-book-ban-smear/) takes on the smear that Palin was a book banner in today's Rocky Mountain News. I am taking the facts he reports at face value:

What could possibly inspire such vitriol? A 12-year-old controversy, in which Palin, the newly elected mayor of Wasilla, asked city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons at least three times how she would feel if asked to remove objectionable books from library shelves. Naturally, Emmons said she would refuse. A few months later, Palin asked for Emmons' resignation. The new mayor said she felt Emmons, who had been appointed by Palin's predecessor and political rival, didn't fully support her agenda and should step aside. But Palin made no mention of book banning in her demand for the librarian's resignation. ...

Palin insisted her questions about pulling controversial books from the library shelves were "rhetorical" and had to do with clarifying city policy. ... The worst one could infer is that Palin raised the censorship issue in an ill-advised effort to appease some constituents, met resistance and let the matter drop to pursue more mundane city business. Emmons and Palin's other political enemies are free to speculate and impugn motives all they want. But results matter. And the bottom line is, Palin didn't ban anything.

This story illustrates a problem with spending tax dollars on libraries. Of necessity libraries must be selective in their purchases. They must implement some criteria for buying books and other items. (How a copy of the horrible Catwoman movie ended up on the shelves of my local library remains a mystery.) Thus, a library is bound to conflict with the values of many funders much of the time, in both its selections and omissions. Notably, a book a library doesn't buy can't be removed from the shelves, so it can't be "censored." But whether a book is not purchased or removed, it's still not available there.

On a free market, who makes these decisions? Presumably most libraries would be nonprofit corporations with boards of directors. People would be free to fund, or abstain from funding, the library. By sending their money voluntarily to the library, funders would agree to put certain decisions in the hands of the library's directors. Of course, people could fund particular books or broader selections.

Tax-funded libraries obscure the distinction between a library's legitimate selection process and government censorship. Properly, censorship is defined as the forcible restriction of speech by government. But a tax-funded library automatically employs force to select and omit books. This inherently violates the rights of those forced to fund the library who would not otherwise choose to do so. By forcing some people to fund material that they find objectionable, tax-funded libraries violate their freedom of conscience.

This illustrates a pattern among the left. They cry for political involvement in various institutions, then they whine when—surprise, surprise—politicians have control over those institutions. While Palin's interference with the local library is questionable, the problem was created by those who insist on making libraries political institutions.

Comment by Ben: Thanks for linking to my op-ed. I think you make an interesting point here, although I think there is a decent case for public libraries fostering the sort of informed society that Jefferson, et. al., thought was indispensable for preserving a republican form of government. Anyway, that's not really what I wanted to comment about. Your last point about Palin's interference and the left's double-standard is well-taken. But I might formulate it differently. Elected officials are accountable to voters. Bureaucrats aren't. Thanks again.

Comment by Ari: First, I would draw a distinction between public libraries and tax-funded ones. An informed society is indeed important; it is so important that information should not be politicized, as it necessarily is with tax funding. Elected officials are accountable to 51 percent of voters. Elected officials are selected by elected officials, so they are indirectly accountable. But the key point is that 51 percent of voters should not be able to force 49 percent to fund materials that the 51 percent approves of.

Special Interests Line Up for 59

September 11, 2008

Recently I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/am-59-would-impose-new-forever-net-tax.html) criticized Amendment 59, the measure that would forever direct refunds from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights to Colorado politicians. I wrote:

Don't be fooled by claims that the new measure is just about education. As one representative of the "yes" campaign noted in a September 1 e-mail, the measure (which advocates are calling Savings Accounts for Education) would "relieve pressure on higher education, health care, transportation and other core services." In other words, because the new taxes go to education, the legislature can transfer other funds from education to whatever it wants.

Today Peter Blake makes the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/11/blake-ta-ta-tabor-rebates/) same point for the Rocky Mountain News:

Although it is nominally designed to provide money for P-12 (formerly K-12) education, and the Colorado Education Association has kicked in $85,000, the ballot issue is drawing support from a wide variety of groups.

The Colorado Bar Association has contributed $25,000, Colorado AARP $15,000, the Colorado Medical Society $5,000. Even Newmont USA, a gold mining firm, gave $15,000.

But the biggest giver has been the Denver Foundation, with $280,000 to date. That's just a fraction of what it's prepared to invest. It deposited $1 million into its own issue committee in July, and $720,000 remains to be transferred.

Why? Said foundation chief David Miller: "As I understand it, SAFE does more than just support education. If it passes, it would free up general fund dollars for health care, which is why the Colorado Health Foundation is a big supporter."

It's kicked in $200,000.

[Carol] Hedges [of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute] confirmed the broader, less advertised, purpose of SAFE. "A dedicated source of funding for schools could reduce the pressure on the general fund, and in turn allow legislators more opportunity for investing in other priorities, such as health care, higher education and transportation."

Hedges' organization has set up its own issue committee to help promote SAFE.

SAFE is a lie. SAFE stands for "Savings Accounts for Education," but the measure would boost funding for whatever programs the legislature wants.

It is also a typical example of "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs." Blake notes that SAFE's "promoters have piles of money and endorsements." Much of this money is coming from people who want a piece of the tax revenues or other political favors. The recipients of the tax dollars—for whom benefits are concentrated—have a big incentive to fool Colorado voters into approving it. The funders—among whom the costs are dispersed—have little incentive to spend time or money opposing the measure.

Of course a big problem with special-interest warfare is that it promotes ever-higher wealth transfers. Such forcible transfers of wealth benefit some at the expense of others and waste resources in the process. But eventually, to the extent that the policy reaches its logical conclusions, everyone is forced to fund everyone else in a battle to consume the pie.

The alternative is liberty, in which people interact voluntarily, trade to mutual advantage, and focus on producing a bigger pie, rather than fighting over the crumbs.

New Hard Rock

September 11, 2008

Hurrah! From the local rock station The Fox I (http://www.thefox.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?apid=4669&mid=190741) learned of new music from (http://www.acdc.com/) AC/DC and (http://www.metallica.com/index.asp?item=601231) Metallica. This follows the release of Rush's "Snakes and Arrows" (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/08/snakes.html) last year; I regard those three bands as the greatest of hard rock. So far I've spent only a few minutes listening, but I'm excited so far. Metallica's "The Day That Never Comes" indicates the band has gotten comfortable again with subtle composition; the group's best songs are very well written. And piano on "Unforgiven III?" Take that, genre zealots. It's a good song. And nothing else matters.

Dishonor Killings Continue

September 12, 2008

NBC News (http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/12/1382073.aspx) reports:

By NBC News' Shahid Qazi and Carol Grisanti

In a tangle of bushes and trees outside a remote village in southwest Pakistan, six close male relatives of three teenage girls dug a 4-foot wide by 6-foot deep ditch, on a sweltering night in mid-July, and allegedly buried the girls alive.

The girls' crime: they dared to defy the will of their fathers and the customs of their tribe and choose their own husbands. The mother of one of the girls and the aunt of another were shot and killed while begging for the girls' lives, according to local media reports. ...

"This action was carried out according to tribal traditions," said Israrullah Zehri, a senator representing Balochistan in the upper house of Pakistan's parliament in the capital Islamabad. "These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," he said.

These murders in the name of "tradition" are a sickening reminder of the widespread cultural barbarism altogether too prevalent in and surrounding the Middle East. Note that this is not merely vigilante injustice; it is sanctioned and endorsed by the "government."

When will we see the Muslim world rise up against such horrific crimes with a tenth, with a hundredth, of the intensity that it rises up for censorship of cartoons?

Republican Majority for Choice

September 12, 2008

On Thursday evening I attended a banquet hosted by the (http://www.gopchoice.org/) Republican Majority for Choice. I was amazed by the large crowd (hundreds strong) and the caliber of speakers. Hank Brown, who has served both as U.S. Senator and President of the University of Colorado, sported a "No on 48" badge (opposing Amendment 48) as he offered a ringing introduction and ushered in the speakers.

See the higher-res version of the Brown photo.

Gale Norton, former Secretary of the Interior, also attended.

I chatted with several sitting and former state legislators. A Republican Majority for Choice. Who knew?

For once I didn't mind bipartisanship as Dottie Lamm and Sarah Weddington—who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade supreme court case—also addressed the crowd.

I had a lot of fun (and will have more to say about the event soon). Two sentences kept going through my mind as I talked with people with whom I'm often on opposite sides: "politics indeed makes strange bedfellows" and "I'm pro-choice on everything."

Harry Potter's Political Lessons

September 14, 2008

Today the Rocky Mountain News published my (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/14/armstrong-lessons-for-us-politicians-from-the-of/) article, "Lessons for U.S. politicians from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." (The original title was "Harry Potter's Lessons for Muggle Politicians," but I like the new one just as well.)

John McCain and Barack Obama would benefit from a semester at Hogwarts (though I suppose they'd both end up causing trouble in Slytherin).

Here I offer just the highlights:
* Do the right thing even if it's difficult.
* Be honest even when it's inconvenient
* Don't cling to power.
* Government is not always the answer.
* Sometimes government gets it wrong.
* Government should protect people's rights.

For details, read the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/14/armstrong-lessons-for-us-politicians-from-the-of/) entire article! Then (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) read the book, Values of Harry Potter.

Don't Threaten Christians...

September 15, 2008

...especially armed ones. The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10463802) reports:

A man who came to the home of two women whom he had threatened to decapitate with a knife received a blow to the head that could cost him an eye, according to Colorado Springs police.

Russell Bowman, who claims to be an atheist, threatened the women because they are Christian on Sept. 8. On Friday, he arrived at their apartment and stood in a hallway, according to a police report.

"Another resident of the apartment retrieved a shotgun and approached Bowman, who was by then walking away. The resident ordered Bowman to put the knife down," according to the report.

Bowman refused and approached the resident, who hit him with the butt of the shotgun, injuring his eye.

I haven't seen the official statistics, but I imagine Christian beliefs correlate with gun ownership in the U.S., mostly because both correlate with rural living.

Of course there can be crazy Christians just as there can be crazy atheists. But there is an important distinction between the two: Christianity defines a set of positive beliefs, whereas atheism does not. Regardless, freedom of conscience, including freedom of religion, implies the right to be left in peace, regardless of your views, so long as you respect the rights of others.

Palin and Abortion: Health Risks

September 15, 2008

Douglas Burns (http://iowaindependent.com/5197/does-palin-want-women-in-prison-for-having-abortions) points to a 2006 (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/2006/governor/story/8372383p-8266781c.html) story from the Associated Press regarding Sarah Palin's views on abortion:

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

The bit about rape is consistent with an (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html) account from Time:

Andrew Halcro, a noted Palin critic who ran against her as an independent in the governor's race... recalls one debate in October 2006 in which, after repeated questions about her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest, she looked at the moderator with exasperation and asked if they were going to talk about anything besides abortion.

Previously I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/with-palin-mccain-ignores-colorado.html) wrote that Palin "ardently opposes abortion... apparently even in cases of rape, incest, or health problems."

I still have not seen anything that clarifies Palin's views on abortion where health problems are concerned. Does she support legal abortion in any case regarding a health problem of the fetus? Presumably not, though I've not seen a clear statement on the matter.

She claims to support legal abortion "if the mother's life was in danger" (a paraphrase, not a direct quote), but that hardly helps. Rarely is it the case that doctors know absolutely that, if they don't remove and thereby kill the embryo or fetus, the woman certainly will die. Most cases are not so clear cut. An abortion may reduce health risks to the woman, though only some women in such cases would otherwise die. An abortion may also reduce physical harm to a woman who would not otherwise die. Where would Palin draw that line? Rational voters deserve an answer.

Hank Brown Rallies Republican Majority for Choice

September 15, 2008

This article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080915/COLUMNISTS/809149962/1021&parentprofile=1062) was published by Grand Junction's Free Press.

September 15, 2008

Hank Brown Rallies Republican Majority for Choice

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

"The heart of the Republican Party is here tonight... This party has always been a bastion of protecting individual freedom, and individual rights, and individual opportunity. It took the form of fighting slavery, it took the form of leading the civil rights movement...

"It took a place in fighting to preserve individual freedom as the government became a regulatory monster at the federal level. And even today it takes the form of fighting to save Americans who work for a living a chance and an opportunity to keep a fair share of what they produce...

"And in true form the Republican Party continues to be a champion of individual freedom and individual rights. The issue that we are concerned about tonight is just such an issue. Who in the world ever would believe that the federal government and a federal bureaucrat should have the right to dictate to people their most personal decisions?

"This issue is about individual freedom, individual responsibility—the very heart of this Republican Party. It's what we've always stood for. It's what's held us together... and what's set Republicans apart. We're the ones who believe individuals have a right to control their own lives. Individuals have a right to decide their own destiny...

"Our gathering tonight is very much in the spirit of this party, it's been the very fiber of what it's believed in and stood for its entire existence. And at the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."

Hank Brown, former U.S. Senator and former president of the University of Colorado, shared those remarks last week in Denver with hundreds of supporters of the Republican Majority for Choice (http://gopchoice.org/) (GOPChoice.org), a national group with a strong Colorado presence. The group organized the event to support a woman's right to choose whether to get an abortion and to oppose Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's Constitution.

Brown's remarks impress us for several reasons. As one of the elder statesmen of the Republican Party in Colorado, and as one of the state's most respected leaders, his words carry a great deal of weight. He has shown real leadership by championing a cause unpopular with a segment of his party's base. He has restated his party's basic principles. And he has pointed the way for his party to regain the trust of freedom-minded independent voters and Republicans who respect the separation of church and state.

Brown's comments are broader than a single issue: in a few words, he has restated the principles of liberty that we once thought—and would like to think again—belong to the Republican Party.

John McCain hardly ever mentions the words "individual rights," and never have we heard him muster much enthusiasm for the concept. Hank Brown said it, and he meant it. While Brown's party side came through when he praised McCain to your younger author, we wish that come November we could cast our presidential vote for a man like Brown.

We know what the opponents of abortion are thinking at this point. "What about the individual freedoms, rights, and choices of the unborn?" Brown did not get into that philosophical debate. As we've mentioned, the paper (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us explains why a fertilized egg is not a person.

Other speakers explained why Amendment 48 threatens to outlaw abortion—even in cases of rape and health risks to the woman—ban popular forms of birth control, ban fertility treatments, and unleash legal havoc in Colorado.

Brown was joined at the event by other notable Republicans, including Gale Norton, former Secretary of the Interior, and State Senator Nancy Spence.

From Grand Junction, former State Representative Gayle Berry attended. She's on the advisory board for the Republican Majority for Choice. She said her goal as part of the organization is "keeping government out of personal choice... A lot of us would choose life, we just don't want government making those decisions for us." She said she's particularly concerned that Amendment 48 would become part of the state's constitution, beyond the reach of the legislature. Also, "it puts 'person' in a definition that could be carried to the extreme."

Berry also showed a party side. Regarding Sarah Palin, who opposes abortion, Berry said, "I love her... I'm not a one-issue voter, and she's not a one-issue candidate." Berry also pointed out that Bob Schaffer also has come out against Amendment 48, though we note that he has not done so based on any fundamental principle. So the GOP remains conflicted.

In 1967, Republican Governor John Love signed a bill liberalizing Colorado's abortion laws. We're glad to see that, in 2008, some Republicans are again planting roots in the soil of liberty.

"A Task That Is From God"

September 17, 2008

Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/) points out that Sarah Palin did not claim that "Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon," as The Washington Post reported. Fox also points out that Palin did not call the Iraq war a "holy war," as ABC News implied.

However, here's what Palin did say, as Fox reports:

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.

The McCain camp objected to ABC News's treatment of the quote:

"Governor Palin's full statement was VERY different" from the way Gibson characterized it," read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

"Gibson cut the quote—where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

"Palin's statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share," Bounds wrote.

Yet here it is Bounds who is performing the spin. The difference between saying that the Iraq war is "a task that is from God" and saying that we should pray that it is "a task that is from God" is pretty trivial. Palin clearly says that the war should be "God's plan." This gives a religious motivation to foreign policy, which should be grounded solely in the national defense of the United States.

Moreover, as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/with-palin-mccain-ignores-colorado.html) pointed out, at the same event Palin also said she thought it was "God's will" that she help build an energy pipeline, and she added that political reform "doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

Palin clearly made the case that politics must be fundamentally based on religion.

Obama's Economic Poison

September 17, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/16/obama-offers-blueprint-salvage-us-economy/) reports:

The Democratic presidential nominee described a six-point plan that would subject all financial institutions that can borrow from the government to more oversight and crack down on trading practices he said border on market manipulation. Such action is needed to repair America's faltering confidence in housing and financial institutions, Obama said.

However, as Yaron Brook (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html) points out, the cause of the current economic crisis is a large set of misguided economic controls.

It is the government's job to protect individual rights, not micromanage the economy. The government must prevent force and fraud, and otherwise leave people to interact voluntarily.

Barack Obama's economic socialism is rather like drinking cyanide to get over the cold or flu.

Update: As Myrhaf (http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/09/around-world-wide-web-78.html) points out, the McCain camp is hardly better:

How can conservatives listen to Sarah Palin and think she is on the side of freedom? She is every bit as ignorant of economics and every bit the statist nightmare that John McCain is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPgDZMBC2DY) Watch her speak in Colorado as she promises to continues the trend of expanding regulations and persecuting CEO's. Because management has not run companies "responsibly," this fascist wants to stop "multi-million dollar payouts and golden parachutes to CEO's who break the public trust." She is promising non-objective law and greater intervention in the economy. Her ideas will not solve the problem, which is too much government regulations in the first place.

The coming McCain/Palin administration will be bad for America. Four years from now we will all be a little more enslaved than we are now.

But "fascist?" Come on, Myrhaf—Palin merely wants (http://blog.mises.org/archives/008053.asp) state control of the nominally private economy.

"A Spirit of Witchcraft"

September 21, 2008

I guess that since Sarah Palin is supposed to be the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, it's appropriate that she's turning into a Teflon Vice-President. It seems that, no matter how kooky her background becomes, the conservatives will rally to her cause. Part of the problem is that some of the stuff is so bizarre it's hard to take seriously; it seems like an elaborate practical joke.

Keith Olbermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26795153#26798219) reviews Palin's comments about Pastor Thomas Muthee.

Hannah Strange (http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html) reports for The Times:

The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.

At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid. ...

An African evangelist, Pastor Muthee has given guest sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God on at least 10 occasions in his role as the founder of the Word of Faith Church, also known as the Prayer Cave. ...

"We prayed, we fasted, the Lord showed us a spirit of witchcraft resting over the place," Pastor Muthee says. ...

According to the Christian Science Monitor, six months of fervent prayer and research identified the source of the witchcraft as a local woman called Mama Jane, who ran a "divination" centre called the Emmanuel Clinic. ...

The "witch" eventually was run out of town.

Here's what the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0923/p15s1.html) has to say about Muthee:

In 1988, [Kenyan pastor Thomas Muthee] and his wife, Margaret, were "called by God to Kiambu," a notorious, violence-ridden suburb of Nairobi and a "ministry graveyard" for churches for years. They began six months of fervent prayer and research.

Pondering the message of Eph.6:12 ("For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world..."), they prayed to identify the source of Kiambu's spiritual oppression, Mr. Muthee says. Their answer: the spirit of witchcraft.

This election is increasingly a contest of the crazies. Certainly this is the most frightening election of my lifetime.

Comment by Adam Reed: I guess a century ago nobody took those crazy Marxists seriously either. Not in an old, stable, politically mature society, like the Russian Empire. Until they were in control. McCain is in his seventies, in poor health, likely to become incapacitated. And then his VP will be in pretty much the same position as the Bolsheviks were in Russia in October 1917. So who cares now about Sarah Palin's crazies? I tried to get the relevant principles of history together in a recent posting on my blog: (http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/2008/09/religion-is-marxism-of-21st-century.html) "Religion is the Marxism of the 21st Century." I haven't gotten much in the way of comments yet...

Unfree Market Failed, Brook Notes

September 21, 2008

Yaron Brook has (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21249) pointed out that the recent economic troubles have been caused by misguided government intervention, not by the progressively smaller element of freedom left in the market:

Everyone is blaming "the free market" for today's financial crisis... But we should be blaming the unfree market. The mortgage and financial markets have been thoroughly controlled by government--and that is why they failed.

It was the government's hand in the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low, the irrational lending standards forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act, and the quasi-official policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed too big to fail, that contributed to creating a situation in which millions of people were buying homes they could not afford, in which the participants experienced the illusion of prosperity, in which billions upon billions of dollars were going into bad investments.

We do not need more regulation or economic "supervision." What we need to do is remove the government's power to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out irrational decisions. The unfree market has failed. It's time for a truly free market.

Brook works for the Ayn Rand Institute. Today's world, with its massive national takeovers of large segments of the market, (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/spirit-of-witchcraft.html) return to mysticism, (http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/book-review-practising-the-power-of-now/) publication of popular nonsensical books, etc., is starting to feel altogether too much like the declining world of Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Amendment 48 Updates

September 22, 2008

Diana Hsieh, who co-authored a paper with me (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," pointed out several articles relevant to the measure, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10524970) published a fairly solid editorial against it. Unfortunately, the editorial includes this unfortunate argument: "While personal definitions of when life begins are varied, Amendment 48's definition doesn't fit with good science. Medical and scientific experts set the start of pregnancy at the point a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus."

It is true that Amendment 48 would grant rights to a fertilized egg even before it implants in the uterus, and that expands the harm of the measure if passed and implemented. However, by referring to "personal definitions of when life begins," the Post places the entire debate in the realm of subjectivism. (Besides, the only scientifically valid answer to the question of when life begins is "approximately four billion years ago," as life has been an uninterupted chain since. Both the egg and sperm are alive prior to fertilization. The relevant question is when personhood begins.)

Then the Post takes a pragmatist turn:

The debate over personhood was settled in 1973 by the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision on whether states could outlaw abortions. The court defined a fetus as a person if it developed into the third trimester and said states could not ban abortions of fetuses until that late stage in a pregnancy. The high court's definition works. Amendment 48's doesn't.

But what is the basis of the claim? Isn't the "third trimester" just another "personal definition," according to the Post? If one definition can have force of law, why can't another?

The advocates of Amendment 48 must be smiling. They never thought the measure would pass. What they wanted to do was advance their cause. They'll be quite happy to outlaw abortion in incremental steps. What they have accomplished with Amendment 48 is to define the end point, toward which most of their opponents have sprinted. The paper by Diana and me is a notable exception.

The Rocky Mountain News also (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/22/vote-no-on-48/) published a pretty good editorial against the measure. The Rocky correctly describes the central purpose of the measure:

What Amendment 48 proponents would like to do, by their own admission, is outlaw all abortions. They can't do that by a state amendment, of course, so long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. And they know this. So Amendment 48 lays the foundation for outlawing abortions if Roe is ever overturned—assuming the measure is not struck down by the courts because of existing federal rulings.

The Rocky wonders whether the measure could "be used from the outset to regulate other areas, such as in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and even contraception." Certainly it could be so used if federal rules on abortion were removed.

But the Rocky thinks it implausible that Amendment 48 could trigger investigations into miscarriages or prevent women from obtaining medical treatment that "might harm a fertilized egg." Why are those concerns implausible? The Rocky offers no argument. While I doubt miscarriages would be routinely investigated, they would have to be if the measure were implemented and a miscarriage were deemed suspicious. For example, what if a woman's associate called the police claiming the woman induced a miscarriage by taking certain herbs or physical measures? If a fertilized egg is legally a person, such cases would have to become a criminal matter. Likewise, if a fertilized egg is a person, then the risks to the egg must be weighed against the risks to the woman. This scenario is not only plausible but logically necessitated.

Nobably, the Rocky approves of "some restrictions on abortion," but it doesn't specify which ones. Amendment 48 "attempts to go too far," says the Rocky—but how far is far enough? Again, Amendment 48 has done precisely what its advocates must have anticipated: move the public debate in the direction of more government control.

What neither newspaper mentions are the relevant biological facts of pregnancy. From the moment of conception through the fetal stage, the embryo/fetus is wholly contained within the woman's body and wholly dependent upon her for sustenance. Thus, an embryo/fetus is radically different from a born child. For a more detailed argument, see the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper.

The Rocky also published three letters about abortion. (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/22/inconvenient-truths-about-fetuses/) Here is the argument by Paul Predecki:

The fetus in the womb is unquestionably (a) alive, (b) human, (c) unique (its DNA is different from that of either parent) and (d) totally innocent. ...

Certainly the baby is totally dependent on the mother, but we are all dependent on others to varying extents. Surely dependence should not justify termination.

Diana and I explain why Predecki's points do not imply personhood. And Predecki's conflation of the position of the fertilized egg with a generalized "dependence" is ridiculous. When I purchase a loaf of bread from a grocery store, that's hardly the same condition as being wholly contained within a woman's body.

Patricia Szott (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/22/without-life-theres-no-chance-of-love/) refers to an "unborn child," indicating the main line of attack of opponents of abortion: merely to assume that a fertilized egg is a person, without argument. That is because the foundation of the belief is rooted in religious faith, not reason.

Then Mayo McNeil (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/22/what-bible-has-to-say-about-personhood/) quotes Genesis and Exodus to "refute" the view that a fertilized egg is a person. Put this in the hefty folder titled, "With Friends Like These..."

Now for some good news. As Diana (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/09/fertilized-eggs-are-still-not-persons.shtml) blogs, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that a fertilized egg is not a person. Hsieh cites the (http://blog.aclu.org/2008/09/15/good-news-for-reproductive-health-care-from-illinois/) ACLU, which in turn cites (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/15/103828/927/663/599369) Daily Kos. Here's a summary of the case:

The case involved an Illinois couple suing their fertility clinic for tens of thousands of dollars because the clinic inadvertently had destroyed unimplanted eggs stored at the facility. The lower court had accepted the argument that a human being is created when an egg is fertilized, regardless of whether the fertilized egg is implanted in a woman's body or left in a Petri dish. Left undisturbed, the lower court's decision could have limited the ability of women in Illinois to access contraceptive services and genetic testing. Moreover, the decision would curb the ability of couples in Illinois to use reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, in starting a family.

So there is some sense left in the world. But the rampant subjectivism and pragmatism of the left is slowly giving ground to those pressing for faith-based politics.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: I haven't been paying attention to this issue since I don't live in Colorado. But upon reading your linked paper, I was alarmed at the implications of this amendment. The paper is an excellent discussion of the rock-bottom biological reasons why a fertilized egg should not be considered a person, as well as the practical legal problems that would arise if this amendment were passed. You do not go much into the consequences for the liberty of pregnant women--I assume because of space and distraction from your basic argument--but they are real and are already happening even though there are no such amendments as yet. For example, women have been jailed in some states in order to prevent them from using drugs while pregnant. Also women have been forced to have particular medical treatments against their wishes by the courts in order to protect the fetus. Sometimes these treatments were forced as the "standard of care" even though the scientific evidence is not compelling. But even if it is the standard of care, a person should have the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. These infringements on the liberty of a pregnant woman are troubling because they indicate a social tendency to define the pregnant woman as not being a person in her own right, but merely as a carrier of the fetus. Such tyranny over the bodies of pregnant women would almost certainly become more commonplace if amendments like Colorado's amendment 48 are passed. In order to define the fetus as a person with rights, the law would have to define the pregnant woman as not being a person with rights. This contradiction indicates the inherent immorality of setting a living woman against her unborn fetus.

The 30-Minute Parent

September 22, 2008

(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10492706) This news story describes a new effort by Denver Public Schools to get parents more involved with their children:

A new effort is focusing on the role parents must play in their children's lives to make them better students. It asks parents to spend 5,280 minutes every school year with their kids doing some sort of intentional activity, such as reading, attending sporting events or going to a museum.

So parents should really stretch themselves, really get into the whole parenting thing by spending a whopping half-hour with their kids every day. Wow. If you spend 35 or 40 minutes per day with your children, I guess you get the gold star.

Then there is this detail:

Parents are being asked to enroll in the Mile High Parents program at their children's school or on the Internet. They will track the minutes they spend with their kids and be eligible for prizes, such as gas cards, money for college and tickets to cultural events.

Sweet! Now you can get prizes for occasionally acting like a parent!

But who's paying for all this stuff? The article doesn't say, and I found no information at Mile High Parents. May we presume it's donated?

The irony here is that Denver Public Schools are tax funded, and the tax funding of schools reduces parental involvement with their children's education. Tax funding largely severs the link between customers and providers, and it trains parents to depend on government bureaucrats to raise their children for them. The solution to that problem is obvious, which is why most people will continue to ignore it.

Comment: Absolutely. Government schools attempt to sever the education of children from parental responsibilities not only by subtly encouraging parents to think that the teachers know better, but even further as the parent who tries to get involved and is told, literally, to "back off and let us do our job" becomes the pariah. When I was told this by my fourth grader's principal, we pulled her out two weeks later.

Balko Critiques Bailout

September 22, 2008

Radley Balko has written a (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425903,00.html) devastating critique of the proposed government takeover of a huge chunk of the economy.

Balko first points out that the federal government employs accounting fraud to disguise its massive debts: "If any private corporation employed the same accounting tricks Congress and the White House use to hide the government's massive debt and financial liabilities, its board and executive officers would all be in prison."

Then, after talking about the new plans to bilk the taxpayer, Balko points out that the real culprit of the economic mess is the federal government, not the "free market," as many allege:

Many commenters have blamed all of this on capitalism. This isn't capitalism. It's a peculiar kind of corporatist socialism, where good risks and the resulting profits remain private, but bad risks and the resulting losses are passed on to taxpayers. There's nothing free-market about it.

Balko doesn't get into all the ways that the government caused the current economic problems. Thankfully, Yaron Brook (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html) did that a couple of months ago.

But today's statist politicians will hear none of the truth. For example, Barney Frank (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425861,00.html) rationalizes the bailout and blames the problems on "a lack of regulation," by which he means national controls.

The truth is the opposite of what Frank alleges. The government's proper regulatory role is to protect rights of property and contract. When that happens, the free market is regulated by the private actions of millions of participants. Successful businesses thrive; foolish ones ultimately fail. This healthy regulation of the markets has been severely undermined by national political controls. Yet, now that those controls have failed, Frank pretends that the problems were caused by non-existent liberty, in order to rationalize more national political controls.

Come to think of it, that's a pretty good summary of how the Great Depression got rolling.

Ron Paul: 'Person' From Conception

September 23, 2008

A little over a year ago, Congressman Ron Paul, formerly a Libertarian and Republican presidential candidate, sponsored (http://www.prolifealliance.com/H.R.2597%20Sanctity%20of%20Life%20Act.pdf) House Resolution 2597, which states that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" and that "the term 'person' shall include all human life" so defined. The proposal also states that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review" any measure that "protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth" or "prohibits, limits, or regulates... the performance of abortions."

In other words, Ron Paul wants not only to overturn Roe v. Wade but to outlaw all abortions.

For an explanation for why a fertilized egg is not a person, and why any legal doctrine based on the faith-based fantasy that it is promises legal chaos and grotesque violations of the rights of actual people, see (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Amendment 48 is Colorado's version of Paul's proposal.

I learned of 2597 indirectly from "Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty," on which Paul (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582) states he is "supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate," rather than Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. I'd never heard of Baldwin, so I looked up his web page. There, he (http://baldwin08.com/Issue-The_Sanctity_of_Life.cfm) states:

I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a "person" under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law.

That pointed me to Paul's proposal. This just goes to show that many people pretending to advocate liberty are in fact its profound enemies.

Ron Paul Endorses Protectionist Chuck Baldwin

September 23, 2008

I am profoundly disappointed that Ron Paul, popular with the folks associated with the Mises Institute—which has strayed far from the principles of its namesake—has endorsed a protectionist for president. I suppose I ought not be surprised, as I have learned by hard experience that the Libertarians and their friends cannot be trusted to defend liberty. Nevertheless, I had retained some residual respect for Paul, a Republican Congressman whom I thought at least talked sense on various economic matters.

As I have (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/ron-paul-person-from-conception.html) noted elsewhere, recently Paul endorsed for president Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, instead of Bob Barr, the Libertarian. As (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/barr-beats-anarchist.html) kooky as Barr's party is, Baldwin is even worse. For example, Baldwin endorses Paul's effort to define a fertilized egg as a person at the federal level.

(http://baldwin08.com/Issue-Jobs.cfm) Here's what Baldwin has to say about "fair trade," a leftist doctrine:

In order to keep jobs in this country, we need to have a trade policy that works in the best interest of the American people. To this end, I favor a tariff based revenue system, originally implemented by our founding fathers, & which was the policy of th United States during most of our nation's history. A tariff on foreign imports, based on the difference between the foreign item's cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States, would be a Constitutional step toward a fair trade policy that would protect American jobs and, at the same time, raise revenue for our national government.

Note that Baldwin is not merely advocating tariffs as a least-bad tax, to be imposed evenly across the board so as to impose the least economic damage. No. Baldwin is advocating tariffs to impose protectionism, to limit free trade. He wants tariffs "based on the difference between the foreign item's cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States."

Baldwin's position is antithetical to liberty and free markets. That Paul, allegedly a sympathizer with Austrian economics, would endorse a protectionist—a protectionist!—for president is horrendous. Mises would be appalled.

Notably, protectionist proposals in the late '20s, leading up to the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, were a significant contributer to the Great Depression. The sheer idiocy of Baldwin's proposal cannot be overstated.

Baldwin also (http://baldwin08.com/BorderSecurityAndImmigration.cfm) wants to "seal our borders and ports" to illegal immigrants—he makes no mention of expanding legal immigration—and, in a nod to the conspiracy theorists, he (http://baldwin08.com/Issue-911.cfm) wants to know "what really happened on September 11th." On this page, he doesn't bother to specify what part of the "official" account he thinks is wrong.

Baldwin is a crackpot. Paul has sullied his own name by endorsing him.

Notes On the Bailout

September 23, 2008

A better term for it is the "pileon," as the proposal threatens to pile onto taxpayers massive amounts of other people's bad debt and foolish decisions.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10532182) quotes from the "three-page outline" of the bailout proposal: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Don't look only at the evils of the bailout itself; look at the precedents it establishes that, in the wrong hands, could lead to an out-and-out fascist state down the line.

The Associated Press at least (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MELTDOWN?SITE=CODER&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) quotes a couple of opposing voices:

Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., "I am emphatically against it." ...

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, was even more blunt. "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike," he said. Seated a few feet away from Paulson and Bernanke, he added, "We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well send $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis."

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., added, "This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it's un-American."

What does the American Public think? On September 17, Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/just_7_favor_fed_bailout_for_financial_firms) reported, "Only seven percent (7%) of voters think the federal government should use taxpayer funds to keep a large financial institution solvent. Sixty-five percent (65%) say let the company file for bankruptcy." On September 22, Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/only_28_support_federal_bailout_plan) reported, "Most Americans are closely following news reports on the Bush Administration's federal bailout plan for the country's troubled economy, but just 28% support what has been proposed so far. Over one-third of voters (37%) oppose the $700-billion plan, and nearly as many (35%) are undecided..." In other words, Americans have a good gut reaction, but their opposition is being worn down by the constant propaganda in favor of this massive, forced redistribution of wealth.

Finally, Thomas Sowell (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/09/23/a_political_solution?page=full&comments=true) hedges on the matter of bailouts, but he has some good things to say about the economic problems:

Why then is there such a mess in the financial markets? Much of that mess is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions-- members of Congress.

Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions.

Such institutions-- exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers' money-- are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

For years the Wall Street Journal has been warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking reckless chances but liberal Democrats especially have pooh-poohed the dangers.

Back in 2002, the Wall Street Journal said: "The time for the political system to focus on Fannie and Fred isn't when we have a housing crisis; by then it will be too late." The hybrid public-and-private nature of these financial giants amounts to "privatizing profit and socializing risk," since taxpayers get stuck with the tab when high-risk finances don't work out.

Similar concerns were expressed in 2003 by N. Gregory Mankiw, then Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bush. But liberal Democratic Congressman Barney Frank criticized Professor Mankiw, citing "concern for housing" as his reason for supporting Fannie Mae. Barney Frank said that fears about the riskiness of Fannie Mae were "overblown."

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/balko.html) noted, Frank is the same fellow who recently advocated the massive bailouts and blamed the problem, not on his own foolish political interventions in the economy, but on "a lack of regulation."

Abortion Warning from South Dakota

September 24, 2008

I have been (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/amendment-48-updates.html) warning about the problem of capitulating to the Amendment 48 crowd. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092002144.html) reveals what can happen when defenders of abortion rights refuse to fight for their principles.

The paper reports:

For the second time since 2006, South Dakota voters are being asked to outlaw almost all abortions. A ballot initiative called Initiated Measure 11 would ban the procedure except in cases of rape, incest and a narrow interpretation of the health and life of the woman.

Voters rejected a more restrictive measure in 2006, but polls suggested that South Dakotans would have voted yes if it had included exceptions.

Because, some opponents argue, Amendment 48 "simply goes to far," I fear Colorado will soon face a similar measure that is still horrific in its implications but that doesn't go quite as far.

The Post discusses one reason why the South Dakota measure is bad:

Marvin Buehner, a pro-choice Rapid City doctor who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, said the law "would amount to a total ban."

"If there's a risk of a Class 4 felony if I don't meet the ambiguous standard of 'serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system,' there's no way I would consider doing an abortion for health reasons," Buehner said. "This represents incredible government interference in the practice of medicine."

Notably, some advocates of the measure explicitly say that God is behind the measure. Such faith-based politics has no place in a free country.

Ayn Rand on Economic Crises

September 24, 2008

Congratulations to the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights—newly established in Washington, D.C.—for its (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842879,00.html) recognition by Time.

The Center issued an outstanding (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21365) release by Alex Epstein quoting Rand.

Epstein notes that some writers have blamed the spirit of Ayn Rand for the economic mess. He replies:

There was no free market in mortgages or finance--these markets were riddled with controls and distortions, courtesy of the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, the CRA, the FDC, and Sarbanes-Oxley. And that lack of a real market was precisely the problem; it induced irrational behavior through dictates, handouts, and bailouts.

If the critics of capitalism had bothered to read Ayn Rand, they would know that their attacks are part of a historical trend of blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention—a trend that needs to stop if we are to prevent further economic damage.

The release then quotes Rand from The Voice of Reason: "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."

And in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand wrote:

If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big industrialists, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not free enterprise, but government controls.

In related news, Diana Hsieh (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/09/jim-demint-man-of-day.shtml) quotes from a release by Senator Jim DeMint, who writes, "This plan does nothing to address the misguided government policies that created this mess and it could make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy."

Comment by Mark: Whoa! You are a free thinker. A classical liberal, I believe. What city are you in? We could use you down here in the SW corner of Co. We have been overrun by California socialists. I am a registered Libertarian, though I still believe that the GOP is the lesser of the two evils. I swore I'd never vote for a socialist. I lied. I voted for Bush because I thought he was less dangerous than Gore, the leader of the world's largest cult. Then Bush turns around and nationalizes the banking industry. Glad I voted Libertarian after that (election, 2000). Failure to recognize the overregulation of the banking industry has doomed us to failure, I'm convinced. We do worship the losers we elect. I'd rather elect someone in a coma and on life support. He'd do less damage than virtually all of these other clowns. Remember gridlock? Saved our butts from those "Rome on the Potomac" control freaks. The only good law is one that repeals ten others. I do have one disagreement with you which I'll need an increase in courage to attempt. You're quite analytically persuasive and I'll probably get my butt kicked. So I'll save that for later.

Sarah Palin and the Witch Hunter

September 25, 2008

A few days ago, I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/spirit-of-witchcraft.html) reviewed the connection between Sarah Palin and Pastor Thomas Muthee, who made a name for himself by running a "witch" out of a Kenyan town.

Now it is clear that, when Palin praised Muthee in June, 2008, she already knew that Muthee took seriously the alleged evils of "witchcraft." As an Associated Press (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/25/video-palin-once-blessed-be-free-witchcraft/) story points out (and see also the related video linked by the same Rocky Mountain News page) in May, 2005, Muthee prayed over Palin, asking God to grant her political success and to protect her from "every form of witchcraft."

Aside from indicating the sorts of people Palin thanks for her political success, the story has at least two other interesting angles.

First, notice how some right wingers are invoking cultural relativism to defend Palin. For example, "Mike846" writes in the comments beneath the story as presented by the Rocky: "You can bet if a witch doctor in Africa had blessed Obama in some tribal ceremony during his visit there, it would have been hailed as a display of his 'tolerance and understanding' of cultural differences in the world." So, by comparison, apparently we're supposed to think well of a man who drove a woman for her home because of her alleged witchcraft, because of the man's quaint "cultural differences." Wow.

Second, Palin's ties to religious crazies may neutralize McCain's attack on Jeremiah Wright. I had assumed that McCain, or his supporters, would start running Wright-Obama ads right before the election. I figured this would have been an effective strategy. But now that doesn't seem like such an effective line of attack.

I keep changing my mind about who's more likely to win the election. I'm not voting for either, and the prospect of either man winning frightens me. However, it seems increasingly likely to me that, as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/with-palin-mccain-ignores-colorado.html) argued, Palin will scare away the freedom-minded independents and secular Republicans McCain needs to win the Interior West.

Reply to Kristi Burton on Amendment 48

September 25, 2008

On September 19, the Pagosa Daily Post published an (http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/9744/OPINION:_Personhood_Initiative_on_November_Ballot/) op/ed by Kristi Burton favoring Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's Constitution. Today The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10550149) published the same piece.

The Pagosa paper published my (http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/9786/OPINION:_Amendment_48_Smoke_Screen/) reply on September 23. Given the wide distribution of Burton's article via the Post, my reply is timely:

Amendment 48 Smoke Screen

Ari Armstrong

Kristi Burton tries to hide Amendment 48 behind a cloud of smoke in her September 19 Post opinion article. The measure would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

Burton's claim that Amendment 48 "doesn't change the constitution in any way" is dishonest. It (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/2008EnglishVersionforInternet.pdf) would add a new section to the state constitution:

"As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

The related provisions pertain to the rights to life, liberty, equality of justice, and due process of law.

The constitution guides interpretation of statutes. For example, existing statutes define first-degree murder as deliberately causing the death of a "person," resulting in life in prison or the death penalty. Burton has never indicated what criminal penalties she wants for abortion.

At least Burton acknowledges she wants to outlaw "abortion on demand." However, she does not admit the full legal ramifications of Amendment 48 if implemented. Women would be forced to carry to term pregnancies even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity. Women suspected of purposely inducing a miscarriage might be subject to criminal investigation.

Burton claims, "Mothers also possess personhood and the amendment in no way endangers their well-being." However, if a fertilized egg is a person, then the life of a fertilized egg must be balanced against the life of the woman, with details to be decided by the courts.

Nor does Burton discuss the impact of Amendment 48 on birth control, fertility treatments, and medical research. The popular birth control pill and other types may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Fertility treatments help hundreds of Colorado women become pregnant every year, but those treatments regularly involve the destruction or freezing of fertilized eggs. Amendment 48 would ban those forms of birth control and fertility treatments.

The facts are these: a fertilized egg, as it develops into an embryo and fetus, is wholly contained within the woman's body and completely dependent on the woman's body for sustenance. This is radically different from a born child, which, while still very needy, can eat and breathe using its own organs and leave its mother to be cared for by somebody else. Thus, personhood begins at birth. A pregnant woman has the right to liberty, including the right to get an abortion.

The same facts show Burton is also wrong in tying abortion to "taking away the lives and dignity of the elderly, sick and disabled." While a fertilized egg is not a person, the elderly, sick, and disabled are people.

Burton rightly criticizes the view that "each person decides" when personhood begins. That is why Burton is wrong to arbitrarily declare that a fertilized egg is a person, when the biological facts show otherwise.

For a more detailed description of the harms of the measure, see "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at the (http://seculargovernment.us/) Secular Government website.

The Post also published a (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10550150) piece by L. Indra Lusero and Lynn M. Paltrow critical of the measure. They offer two concrete examples:

For example, in Washington, D.C., doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have a C-section, claiming the fetus faced a 50 to 75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court said, "All that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was—put simply—a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

In Florida, Laura Pemberton wanted to have a vaginal birth after a previous C-section. Her doctors believed that her fetus had a right to be born by a C-section. A sheriff came to her house, took her into custody while she was in active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital, where they were holding a hearing about the rights of the fetus. A lawyer was appointed for her fetus but not for her. She was forced to have a C-section. Pemberton subsequently gave birth vaginally to four more children, defying the medical and court predictions of harm.

On September 23, the Rocky Mountain News also published a good (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/23/catholic-physician-no-to-amendment-48/) letter by Dr. Thomas W. Moffatt opposed to Amendment 48:

As a Catholic and retired pro-life obstetrician, I am very concerned about Amendment 48. I am concerned, in a pluralistic, democratic society, about imposing my religious beliefs on another. There is, then, nothing to stop others from imposing their beliefs on me. But from a purely medical and pro-life point of view, how can I impose my beliefs on another to the point that women can and will die?

I have been faced with situations in my years of practice in which I had to decide if one person or two would die. Two prime examples are ectopic—or tubal—pregnancies, and infected pregnancies. Must we now allow a woman to die if she is hemorrhaging from a ruptured fallopian tube? Should both the mother and child die in the case of an infected pregnancy, which often, sadly, occurs in the middle trimester?

Will a physician, in saving a woman's life, be subject to criminal prosecution? We know some prosecutor will, eventually, try to make a name for himself by charging a physician with manslaughter or worse.

Amendment 48 must be defeated, along with its possible future stepchildren.

The New No On 48 Sign

September 26, 2008

Some jerk stole my "No on 48" yard sign. But it wasn't a very good sign, anyway; I had to cut out the part that said, "It Simply Goes Too Far."

Now I've made a new sign that actually contains some substantive information:

To use this sign, you need merely (http://ariarmstrong.com/files/2008/no48sign.pdf) download the pdf file, print out the two pages, and protect them from the elements with plastic or glass. And, when somebody steals your sign, you can just print out another one!

How Republican Libby Szabo Lost My Vote

September 26, 2008

I live in a competitive political area, where elections are actually decided during the main elections, not during the primaries. For Colorado's State Senate District 19, Republican (http://www.libbyszabo.com/) Libby Szabo is running against Democrat (http://www.eviehudak.com/) Evie Hudak. The seat is open, as Democrat Sue Windels is term limited (she's (http://www.suewindels.com/) running for Jefferson County Commissioner).

I support neither candidate. I'm going to cast my vote with Hudak as the strongest possible vote against Szabo.

This local race is a microcosm of what's going on nationally. In races across the country, voters face terrible choices, with theocrats on one side, socialists on the other.

Nearly a year ago, I sent a (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/churchstate-separation-endorsed-by.html) letter to various candidates asking them to endorse the separation of church and state. While I never got around to sending the letter to the state senate candidates, Szabo has made it clear that she strongly endorses faith-based politics. Which is why I strongly oppose her.

I have been arguing for months that a major reason Republicans have killed themselves in Colorado is their unflagging commitment to faith-based politics. For the last several election cycles, my region has been targeted by mailers attacking Republicans who want to ban abortion. This year is no different, as the nearby image demonstrates. It is from a flyer "Paid for by 21st Century Colorado."

Yes, it is true that Szabo wants to "ban all abortions" and "say no to stem cell research." See her (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/files/CQ/Libby%20Szabo.pdf) answers to the 2008 "Colorado Right to Life: Candidate Questionnaire." Following are Szabo's answers to several of the questions:

Do you advocate that the government uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for the unborn? YES

Do you agree that abortion is always wrong, even when the baby's father is a criminal (a rapist)? YES

Do you support the 2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization? YES

Will you oppose any research or practice that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans (embryonic stem cell research)? YES

Will you refuse to support any legislation that would allow abortion, even if it is a 'pro-life' bill (i.e. legislation that says "Abortion shall be prohibited unless...") I will oppose abortion at every opportunity.

Libby Szabo says yes to faith-based politics. That is why I say no to Libby Szabo, and why I will oppose her at every opportunity.

My vote for Hudak should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any of her policies. "Coloradans for Change" has been circulating an effective flyer claiming that Hudak "spent $11,316 of taxpayer money as a member of the State Board of Education" on things like "expensive, chauffeured limo rides, luxury hotels and expensive meals at 5-star luxury hotels." That does indeed raise my eyebrows (and it might give Szabo a shot at winning).

But nothing turns me off to Hudak as strongly as her own campaign literature. For example, one piece claims, "Evie will invest in cutting-edge renewable energy technology..." Nonsense. I doubt that Hudak has any plans to personally invest in such technology. What she means is that she wants to force me to fund this corporate welfare.

What a choice. The "options" in the state senate race mirror those of the U.S. Senate contest between Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer. While Schaffer (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/schaffer-on-abortion.html) opposes abortion, at least he's had enough sense to run away screaming from (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Amendment 48 (the "personhood" measure that Szabo endorses). I'm voting for Udall for the same reason I'm voting for Hudak: both their opponents push faith-based politics. Udall (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) wrote a particularly strong endorsement of the separation of church and state. It's the same "choice" I faced in the last governor's race, and the reason why I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) voted for Democrat Bill Ritter.

Maybe someday Colorado Republicans will learn that the Interior West leans toward liberty and away from faith-based politics. There are some (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/hank-brown-rallies-republican-majority.html) hopeful signs. Until then, I guess I'm a Democrat by default, as much as that sickens me.

Brook: Stop the Bailouts

September 27, 2008

Yaron Brook (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337) issued the following statements about the bailout:

"Over the last year, the central planners at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have pretended that by bailing out homeowners, then bailing out investment banks, then bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they were wisely 'steering' the economy to protect us against some undefined 'systemic risk.'

"But the mounting financial problems reveal that Paulson and Bernanke are as clueless as any other central planners who try to control an entire economy. They are not saving us from anything; they are delaying some of the pain that necessarily follows from a Fed-induced credit bubble, and redistributing that pain to innocent victims. They are punishing responsible individuals and rewarding irresponsible individuals.

"The bailouts must stop. The government must make clear that from now on, those who are in financial trouble must turn to the private market for help if they are to avoid failure; the government must no longer foist their failures on others, and invite another crisis in the future."

Now is a good time to let your congresscritters know you oppose the proposed massive redistribution of wealth.

Stop the Bailout: Three Links

September 27, 2008

Diana Hsieh (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/09/jim-demint-man-of-day.shtml) points to the following (http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=8b42ecf0-d725-fd9c-d51f-586e39c6c94a) media release from Senator Jim DeMint:

"After reviewing the Administration's proposed bailout plan, I believe it is completely unacceptable. This plan does nothing to address the misguided government policies that created this mess and it could make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy. This plan fails to oversee or regulate the government failures that led to this crisis. Instead it greatly increases the role for Secretary Paulson whose market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year, and provides corporate welfare for investment firms on Wall Street that don't want to disclose their assets and sell them to private investors for market rates. Most Americans are paying their bills on time and investing responsibly and should not be forced to pay for the reckless actions of some on Wall Street, especially when no one can guarantee this will solve our current problems."

"This plan will not only cause our nation to fall off the debt cliff, it could send the value of the dollar into a free-fall as investors around the world question our ability to repay our debts. It's also very likely that this plan will extend the cycle of bailouts, encouraging other companies to behave in reckless ways that create the need for even more bailouts, triggering an endless run on our treasury. This plan may make things look better for Wall Street in the next couple months, but the long-term consequences to our economy could be disastrous.

"There are much better ways of dealing with this problem than forcing American taxpayers to pay for every asset some investor doesn't want anymore. We should start by reforming government policies and programs that created this mess, including the Federal Reserve's easy money policy, the congressional charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Community Reinvestment Act. Then Congress should pass a number of permanent and proven pro-growth reforms to encourage capital formation and boost asset values. We need to make permanent reductions in the corporate tax and the capital gains tax rates. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, which encourages companies to take jobs and investment overseas."

"It's a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this Administration. The Administration said the bailout of Bear Stearns would stop the bleeding and solve the problem, but they were wrong. They said $150 billion in new government spending using rebate checks would solve the problem, but they were wrong again. They said new authority to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would solve the problem without being used, but they were wrong again. Now they want us to trust them to spend nearly a trillion dollars on more government bailouts. It's completely irresponsible and I cannot support it."

Paul Hsieh (http://www.geekpress.com/2008/09/how-u.html) cites an (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/26/the-us-government-engineered-the-current-economic-crisis/) article in Tech Crunch by Michael Arrington:

These people (the U.S. government) need to be stopped. Every time we get ourselves into an economic mess, there's usually some milestone idiocy we can point back to as the government action that made the meltdown inevitable.

Take the current housing crisis that has now spread to the financial markets in general. The cause was too-easy credit that fueled a massive increase in housing prices as people bought houses they couldn't afford with mortgages they weren't able to pay off.

In 1999 there was roughly $5 trillion in total U.S. mortgage debt. That number ballooned to $12 trillion by 2007, and we know what happened from there (data is from the U.S. Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight). To put this into perspective, total U.S. GDP is about $11 trillion annually, and U.S. government debt is around $9 trillion. If the housing market really falls apart (meaning more than conservative estimates of a 20% drop), there's no way the government can simply cover these losses.

Why did it happen? Let's go back to 1999, when Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, was under pressure by the Clinton administration to find a way to get more loans to "borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans." A pilot program was launched, which soon became general policy. Money flowed to people who couldn't afford to pay it back.

Paul also noted a (http://scconservative.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/rescue-plan-from-a-healthy-banks-perspective/) release by John Allison, President & CEO of BB&T:

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the primary cause of the mortgage crisis. These government supported enterprises distorted normal market risk mechanisms. While individual private financial institutions have made serious mistakes, the problems in the financial system have been caused by government policies including, affordable housing (now sub-prime), combined with the market disruptions caused by the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low and then raising interest rates too high.

There is no panic on Main Street and in sound financial institutions. The problems are in high-risk financial institutions and on Wall Street. ...

Let's hope enough people in Congress are listening.

Mesa County Candidates Discuss Economics, Self-Defense

September 29, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20080929/OPINION/809289985/1062&parentprofile=1062&title=Candidates%20discuss%20economics,%20self-defense) was published by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Candidates discuss economics, self-defense

September 29, 2008

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

For many of us, the election can't be over soon enough. The same goes for many of our candidates. Those running for office, with rare exception, believe that they are running for the cause of good government. They become emotionally vested in the race and their proposals. They spend a great deal of time and money (sometimes their own) seeking office. It's exhausting.

When candidates attend forums, often only a few voters show up. Candidates have little opportunity to communicate directly with the voters at large. Usually there are two types of people who attend these forums: those looking for handouts or political favors and those trying to keep from suffering more abuse at the hands of politicians. For those looking at the big picture, these forums offer a painful reminder that politicians have pushed government well beyond its proper bounds.

Your senior author recently attended two forums for candidates. The Pro Second Amendment Committee (PSAC) hosted its forum on September 19; the Mises Economics Study Group held its event on September 24.

PSAC has been around since 1989, motivated by the threat of California's so-called assault gun ban. We're pleased to note that, while the federal government imposed a ban on the sale of certain "assault" weapons in 1994, that ban sunset in 2004, thanks in large part to the work of groups like PSAC.

Sandy Caskey, president of the group, did an excellent job of organizing and conducting the forum. All of the candidates running for office in Mesa County attended, except Marcia Neal, a candidate for state school board.

The candidates shared their views on the importance of the Second Amendment. They all strongly support it, of course. Some of us half expected to see Charlton Heston descend from the heavens to shake their hands.

Unfortunately, the next segment could have aired on Saturday Night Live. None of the candidates seemed to know that Colorado is an open-carry state. Most of them thought the question of open carry should be "studied."

Dan Robinson, a candidate for county commissioner, suggested that technology circumscribes our rights. "Plastic guns cannot be identified in metal detectors and should be controlled," he said. Setting aside the fact that no such gun exists, we wonder if Robinson would extend his argument about technology to the First Amendment. Should we restrict freedom of the press because we now have electricity and the internet?

Your senior author asked the candidates if they would use the power and prestige of their office to press for gun safety in the schools. Some candidates dodged the question by assuming this meant mandatory classroom instruction. Janet Rowland, a candidate for county commissioner, said she would promote voluntary gun safety, and for that she earns our high marks (despite our previous differences with her on other matters).

For the Mises group, Don and Sue McFarland opened their home to over 40 guests. Marcia Neal again offered a very persuasive reason for not attending, this time joined by D. D. Lewis, a candidate for county commissioner. Representative Bernie Buescher failed to respond to several requests to attend the forum.

As an aside, this discussion group is important. With various politicians—including our Republican president—promoting $700 billion in new corporate welfare, now is a great time for candidates to turn to the wisdom of master economist Ludwig von Mises. Even though we sometimes disagree with the outfit now bearing his name, at least it makes available many of Mises's works at www.mises.org/misesbooks.asp. To take one example, readers who think of themselves as liberals ought to check out Mises's book Liberalism, which promotes the concept at its truest.

The first pitch to the candidates was a hardball: defend the morality of capitalism or socialism. Such fundamental issues rarely concern today's politicians. The good news is that no candidate choose to defend socialism. The bad news is that none seemed to be able to defend capitalism. We were mildly impressed by County Commissioner Craig Meis, who started down the right path.

We suggest candidates read Ayn Rand's book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Then they'll be ready for the question next time. In fact, voters too might ask themselves whether they can outline the differences between these fundamentally opposed economic systems and defend one over the other.

If more people would read Mises and Rand, they would be on the lookout for the sorts of misguided political controls that caused the current financial crisis. Notably, in her book on capitalism Rand notes that economic crises "blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business." That perfectly summarizes recent events.

Today's pragmatic political climate turns most candidates into invertebrates. The major political problem is fantasizing about how best to spend other people's money. So we sincerely appreciate those candidates who made an effort to talk about central ideas, if only for an evening.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Values of Harry Potter on 9News

September 29, 2008

Yesterday 9News aired a (http://www.9news.com/video/default.aspx?aid=62179) segment in which I discuss Harry Potter's political lessons. I offer an abbreviated version of a piece I (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/14/armstrong-lessons-for-us-politicians-from-the-of/) wrote for the Rocky Mountain News. Enjoy!

And then go (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/) buy the book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles, by Ari Armstrong.

Liberty 1, Bailout 0

September 30, 2008

The fight is hardly over, but today bore witness to a remarkable convergence. The American public maintained the common-sense position that forcibly transferring other people's money to bureaucrats and irresponsible financial institutions is a stupid idea. And the House of Representatives actually voted that way, defeating the Bush-Paulson-Bernanke bailout, at least in the first round.

The pointed drop in the stock market proved a sobering reply. Yet that doesn't change the fundamental issues. Those investors counting on taking money from others by force deserve to lose their shirts, frankly. What needs to happen is for people to learn that, even if misguided federal policies are pushing the market in a dangerous direction, it's foolish to march whistling down that path with the expectation that the feds will bail them out with tax funds (or deficit spending). We need a market correction—a correction to the years-long, politician-induced lending spree that caused the real-estate bubble and piled up mountains of bad debt.

How did the Colorado delegation (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/09/29/daily11.html) vote? "Among Colorado's representatives, the proposed bailout was supported by Tom Tancredo, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter. The issue was opposed by John Salazar, Mark Udall, Marilyn Musgrave and Doug Lamborn." Thank you, Salazar, Udall, Musgrave, and Lamborn. Shame on you, Tancredo, DeGette, and Perlmutter.

Today I link to three great critiques of the bailout.

First, Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard (http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2008/09/urgent-oppose-bailout-of-wall-street.asp) writes to members of Congress:

I and other Americans will forever condemn any and all politicians who vote for or in any way support a bail out of Wall Street.

Every thinking American knows that the cause of this catastrophe was government intervention in the economy via the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, etc. The notion that more government intervention will solve the problem is absurd, and to act on that notion would be an obscene dereliction of responsibility and a travesty of justice.

The only sound solution to this problem is for the government to acknowledge that its intervention is the fundamental cause of the situation, and, correspondingly, to remove its hands from the economy and let the market correct itself via bankruptcy procedures, liquidations, takeovers, etc. This would lead to a highly volatile market for a brief time, but the market would quickly reallocate assets to those who are most competent, and the economy would begin to recover.

This is not rocket science; it is economics 101, and Americans know it. Don't test us.

Second, The Crucible & Column (http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2008/09/your-government-can-wreck-your-economy.html) brings us "'How Your Government Can Wreck Your Economy and Get Away with It' in 6 Easy Steps." Following are the first two:

1. Set up a Mechanism to Launder Risky Home Mortgage Debt. Create an agency whose sole purpose is to "offer liquidity to the secondary mortgage market." The agency will guarantee home loans for a small "insurance" fee, or it will buy them and repackage them as "mortgage-backed securities" also guaranteed to pay, regardless of default. Set low standards for the types of loans that will quality, and make sure your fees are low so lots of people will sign up for your insurance. Sell these new low risk securities into the financial markets. Viola! You make risky debt look good, and sell it to "suckers" thereby providing liquidity to the mortgage market. Oh, it's true that some of them won't fall for it, but all we need a few, the dumber ones, and the ones who know what's going on, but who are hoping to find a sucker of their own to pass the buck to. Oh, almost forgot. Make sure you set up this agency as a "private" company. Imply that you'll save it if it gets into trouble, but don't promise it explicitly. Give it a nifty, folksy name like Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.They'll love that.

2. Force banks to offer Risky Debt. What? Not enough people are helping you issue risky debt? Well, that's easy. Just pass a law that forces banks to lend to high-risk prospects. Tell them you won't let them do things like merge with other banks unless they can prove they are issuing risky debt the way you want them too. Make sure the law states that they specifically shouldn't look at things like applicants' income, or current assets when making decisions about them. If it doesn't work so well at first we can just revise it, so our money laundering agency gets into the act too. Oh, name again. We certainly don't want something like the "Let's Issue More Risky Debt Act", so we need something that will tug at their heartstrings. Got it! the "Community Reinvestment Act"! They'll love that.

Third, Jeffrey Miron has written a powerful (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html) piece for CNN (thanks to Damon Payne):

... This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government. ...

Please read the rest of Miron's excellent article—and mention it to your friends.

Today was a good day for liberty. The war is hardly over, but in our era good days for liberty are increasingly rare and cause enough to celebrate.

Americans Oppose Bailout

September 30, 2008

Americans are steamed about the bailout proposal.

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/29/senate-rivals-agree-on-one-thing-bailout/) quotes Mark Udall on the constituent reply:

"People are mad," Udall said. "My calls are mixed, between people who say 'No' and people who say 'Hell no.' "

Rational Passion (http://rationalpassion.livejournal.com/69039.html) includes this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRmNGJlZjgyNmZhMjc3NGY2MjVmNmUwNjI2M2QxZWI=) tidbit by Peter Robinson:

A colleague here at the Hoover Institution spoke recently with a senior, and Democratic, member of the California congressional delegation. In the last week, she said, her office had received roughly 15,000 telephone calls, letters, and emails. How many favored the bailout?

Ten.

So, in reply, "Leaders seek new deal," quotes a headline at the top of The Denver Post's web page. The Rocky Mountain News online leads with a story about how Obama and McCain are joining Bush to "save" the bailout package. The level of media cheerleading for the bailout has been extraordinary.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9MTZEgukPLY) reports, "The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression." As economists in the Austrian tradition like to emphasize, a fractional reserve system that can be manipulated by a central agency is prone to bubbles and deflationary retractions.

John Lewis (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/09/correspondence-on-bailout.shtml) has the following to say about the bailout:

... I am opposed to bailing out these firms. But what I am more opposed to is the entire political culture of regulation--including manipulation of interest rates, Sarbanes-Oxley, changes in accounting rules, the Community Renewal Act, and a scad of others--that has fostered this mess. Two weeks ago no politician in Washington knew this was coming. Suddenly, after several all-nighters, they have enough knowledge to grant a quarter of a trillion dollars to a government bureaucrat, to dole out as he sees fit--and to promise another half-trillion, should his actions make it worse.

Meanwhile, the country focuses on the allegedly evil CEOs, "speculators" (read "investors"), and loan initiators who were earlier damned for NOT making loan money available to high-risk borrowers. I remind you that the Community Renewal Act penalizes firms for not making such risky loans. Now, suddenly, those firms are villified for following the law. ...

The government is not saving Main Street--it is nationalizing it. Is it not true that, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government now holds paper on tens of millions of American mortgages? What does granting American citizens "equity positions" and "profits" in companies seized by the government mean, except communism? Don't we condemn Hugo Chavez for nationalizing oil companies? ...

Interesting times, indeed.

Bailouts and the Religious Right

September 30, 2008

Originally I rejected the following comment because it is snarky and anonymous:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/stop-bailout-three-links.html) "Stop the Bailout: Three Links":

hmmm... now, who is threatening to socialize this country the most right now? we better watch out for those faith-based groups forming during this time of economic turmoil!!

Yet the comment does raise a serious point, so I will offer a serious answer.

Is the threat coming from the religious right or the socialist left? The answer is both. I fear both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, right and left. However, I continue to hold that today's major threat is the faith-based politics of the right.

Which would most negatively impact my life: implementation of the bailout, or implementation of (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/stop-bailout-three-links.html) Amendment 48? There is no question that Amendment 48, the darling of the religious right, would be much more disastrous for my life and the lives of most Coloradans.

But there is a deeper issue here. There is no direct connection between the bailout and faith-based politics. But there is an indirect connection. Increasingly the religious right is apathetic or outright hostile toward free markets. George W. Bush, who has made faith-based politics a centerpiece of his presidency, has led the country into deeper deficits, dramatically more state spending, and entitlements that are spinning out of control. And, notably, who is pushing the bailout? George W. Bush. "Who is threatening to socialize this country the most right now?" It is indeed our faith-based president, who holds nothing but contempt for free markets and economic liberty. With his faith-based welfare, Bush has brought the religious right onto the welfare-state gravy train.

And where is John McCain, who pandered to the religious right with his selection of Sarah Palin? Oh, right—he's pushing the bailout proposal, too. Where's Sarah Palin? Where is this Pitbull with Lipstick? Is she standing with the American people against the bailout? Hell, no. If she becomes vice president or president, is she going to stand up for economic liberty in the White House? Hell, no. She has (http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/p/Palin_Economy.htm) talked about simultaneously cutting taxes and balancing the budget, but without a serious commitment to spending cuts, her talk is just fantasy.

Bush has expressed a view uncomfortably close to a doctrine of divine command. Palin has (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-witch-hunter.html) praised a witch-hunting minister who prayed to God for her political success. In general, people who believe they're in power by God's authority cannot be trusted to govern according to the principles of individual rights and free-market economics.

To invoke Ayn Rand's phrasing, we are faced by the duel threat of the mystics of muscle—the socialist left—and the mystics of spirit—the religious right. The most frightening (but unsurprising) trend is the merging of the two.

Comment: Bush and McCain have no respect for free market economics. I believe that Palin initially said she opposed the bailout -- she probably will have to support it as McCain's running mate. If faith based means that the inspiration for all of their policies comes from God, then yes, those people are very dangerous. But I know that many religious conservatives derive their economic policies from reason and a real understanding of economics. Jim DeMint would be an example. Without some of these conservatives with a personal faith that give lip service to religion in the house, this socialist bill would have passed.

Comment: Also, political freedom obviously depends on economic freedom, so a socialist political system could affect all aspects of one's life. Leftists could become mystics of spirit in the same degree they are mystics of muscle. Abortion laws would negatively affect lives, but I know that I would just make sure I always had a supply of chemical birth control. I would rather live with an abortion law that I can ignore with contraception than some of the laws in socialist countries that limit the number of children one is allowed to have. I would rather elect politicians that respect the 1st Amendment so I'd be allowed to fight against such a law. Democrats want both net neutrality and the fairness doctrine, which are both much more severe and stifling than the social conservative censorship of pornography. I don't think a law that censored porn would last, as long as the 1st amendment was fundamentally intact. So, I'd rather elect the pro-life, economically rational Jim DeMint than the socialist pro-choice Barney Frank, whom I do not trust to protect my political freedom. I would vote for these people right now, because there isn't a good alternative, and because socialism isn't something that can be done away with within a single change of leadership. (especially if the change in leadership is only a socialist "right wing" religious fanatic) Objectivists have a lot of work to do in promoting the secular, rational defense of capitalism. Until the culture changes, I am more comfortable with imperfect politicians that will respect the right to promote reason. I don't know how I will vote in this presidential election, though. McCain doesn't respect political free speech and supports the bailout, so maybe both would be equally harmful. Maybe we'll have to rely on economically rational conservatives in congress.

J. K. Rowling's Magical World of Values

September 30, 2008

Tomorrow (October 1) marks the official publication of my book, (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/magicalvalues.html) Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles.

To celebrate the occasion, I've released a (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/magicalvalues.html) new essay titled "J. K. Rowling's Magical World of Values," which briefly contrasts the magic of Rowling with that of fantasy writers J. R. R. Tolkien and Lloyd Alexander. In Rowling, the heroes move into the magical world and remain there. In Tolkien and Alexander, the magic fades at the end of the stories. What is the thematic significance of this? (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/magicalvalues.html) Read the essay.

Economist Akacem Opposes Bailout

October 1, 2008

Metro State economist Mohammed Akacem (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/01/akacem-no-bailout-please-im-done-paying/) adds his voice to those who oppose the bailout in today's Rocky Mountain News:

... Supporters of the bailout warn us against the systemic risk involved if we do not do anything. Well, of course there is financial pain involved, but we need to decide whom we want to feel the pain. Should those who were responsible for causing this debacle—whether banks or unwise borrowers—pay for this? Or should the innocent taxpayer who had nothing to do with it in the first place pay for it?

Just as the supporters of the bailout warned us about what could happen if we did not go along in order to scare us into submission, it is time to warn them about what could happen if we do. Rewarding risky behavior simply invites more of it. It is called moral hazard. If we decide to remain hostage to the too-big-to-fail doctrine and succumb to the fearmongering that goes along with it, we might as well say goodbye to the market economy as we know it. ...

Paul Hsieh also (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/09/more-analysts-blaming-government-for.shtml) quotes some good commentary opposing the bailout. And the Ayn Rand Center has put up a (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis) web page devoted to the matter.

For a couple of more humorous takes on the mess, see recent posts by (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/09/adopt-investment-bank.shtml) Diana and (http://www.geekpress.com/2008/09/currently-circulating-on-wall-street.html) Paul. In fact, the last post is so funny—so painfully funny—that I'll repost it below:

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

DEAR AMERICAN:

I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.

I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.

I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.

THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.

PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV
SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.

YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON

Capitalism In Two Minutes

October 1, 2008

After my dad and I wrote a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/mesa-county-candidates-discuss.html) column criticizing candidates for their general inability to defend capitalism, one of the candidates asked us if we could defend capitalism in two minutes. Granted that it's easier to write something down than to come up with it spontaneously, following is what I came up with (which obviously owes a great deal to Ayn Rand):

Capitalism is the only economic system that recognizes the right of each individual to his own life and pursuit of happiness. Under capitalism, the government's sole responsibility is to protect individual rights, including the right to life, the right to control one's own property consistent with the equal rights of others, and the right to interact voluntarily. No person may use force against any other except in lawful self-defense.

Capitalism does not mean today's mixed economy, in which some property is held by individuals, some by the government, in which politicians control most aspects of the economy with reams of controls, in which nearly half of all produced wealth is forcibly redistributed by politicians. Do not blame capitalism for the current economic mess, which was caused by government-controlled lending institutions and political rules that forced other lenders to make risky loans.

Capitalism is the only system that recognizes the right of each individual to live by his own judgment. Each person is free to choose what to study, how long to study, what career to pursue, when to change careers, how long to work, where to live, where to shop, and where to recreate. However, no person may force anyone else to provide any good, service, job, or relationship. To get something from someone else, each individual must freely trade to get it or rely on gifts given voluntarily. Because each individual acts on his own judgment, capitalism is the system geared to the production of wealth. Individuals can make economic mistakes, but when they do they are less able to induce others to exchange goods and services. Capitalism thus forbids all political action beyond the protection of rights as instances of force, the effect of which is to disrupt the rational plans of individuals as they produce and interact. Capitalism rewards good judgment and productivity, leading to an increasingly wealthy society in which any honest, hard-working person can prosper and the most productive can keep what they richly deserve.

Colorado Republican Committee Pushes Anti-Abortion Agenda

October 1, 2008

Some Colorado Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion, and they've funded a flyer to promote that agenda. The flyer was redistributed by the Republican Majority for Choice—with criticisms. That group recently (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/hank-brown-rallies-republican-majority.html) hosted an event featuring former Senator Hank Brown.

The flyer, "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee," urges recipients to vote for candidates who will appoint Supreme Court justices "who will protect life," euphemism for outlaw abortion.

Meanwhile, "21st Century Colorado" continues to hammer (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/how-republican-libby-szabo-lost-my-vote.html) Libby Szabo over her answers to a Colorado Right to Life survey. That group's flyer makes it clear that Szabo is a Republican; she is shown with President Bush near the Republican logo. (That side of the flyer is not provided here.) Colorado Republicans certainly are making themselves easy targets for the Democrats. Maybe someday they'll learn that faith-based politics turns off freedom-minded independent voters, as well as Republicans who respect the separation of church and state. But the latest GOP flyer reminds us not to count on it.

Kristi Burton's Gospel of Jesus Christ

October 2, 2008

Kristi Burton sometimes tries to (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/reply-to-kristi-burton-on-amendment-48.html) pretend that Amendment 48, defining a fertilized egg as a person, is about science. But such arguments are laughable. Elsewhere she reveals her real agenda: to impose her religious dogma by force of law.

Westword (ttp://www.westword.com/2008-09-25/news/meet-kristi-burton-the-22-year-old-pro-lifer-behind-the-personhood-amendment/1) reveals a bit more about Burton's background:

At seventeen, Burton began taking classes through Oak Brook College of Law and Government, an online law school whose mission is "to train individuals who desire to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ through service as advocates of truth, counselors of reconciliation, and ministers of justice in the fields of law and government policy." (Oak Brook students are also encouraged to "rely upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to give them the power to develop within them Christ-like character qualities.")

Assuming Burton takes Oak Brook's advice to heart, she believes she is inhabited by a ghost that tells her to ban abortion. These "ministers of justice" threaten to unleash profoundly unjust laws.

Media Cheerleaders Push Bailout

October 2, 2008

I am stunned by the level of media cheerleading for the bailout. This is quite possibly the most serious example of journalistic dereliction of duty in my lifetime. Every news story I've read on the matter is grotesquely biased in favor of the bailout. While the editorial pages I've seen have been little better, at least some of them have passed along substantive dissenting views.

Nevertheless, one can learn some interesting facts from the news accounts; even cheerleaders often follow the game. I'll take a peek at the Associated Press (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/28/congress-expected-pass-rescue-bailout-package/) article currently leading at the web page of the Rocky Mountain News.

The article relates the statement of Senator Wayne Allard, who voted against the bailout:

"In considering proposals to stabilize the economy, taxpayers have always been my top priority," said Allard. "In creating this $700 billion package, Congress held no hearings, nor did it use a process to provide a reasonable assurance that this proposal would even work. I am unwilling to leave a huge legacy of debt for generations to come without confidence that it would be worth the price.

"I have always believed that the government should live within its means and thus have opposed increasing the federal debt limit. The bill before Congress would increase the national debt to a whopping $11.3 trillion. I believe that Congress can find a way to unfreeze the credit markets without unfairly penalizing American families for the greed and mismanagement on Wall Street." ...

It would have been pleasant if Allard had correctly identified the cause of the crisis—primarily federal encouragement of risky loans—rather than blame the foggy "greed and mismanagement on Wall Street." (Senator Ken Salazar, who voted in favor, says he's "angry and frustrated" that "the economy has reached this point." But "the economy" is the sum total of all the players, including the federal politicians who caused the crisis.)

But at least Allard points to the simple fact that all this money is going to come from... thin air. Meaning inflationary, deficit spending.

The AP relates: "Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners..." That's grand. At the same time the federal government is going to be spending more money, it's going to be taking in less money. Tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are worthless—except insofar as they cloak redistributions of wealth.

What are the other "sweeteners?" Federal backing of more bank deposits. So that banks can mismanage their assets without scaring their customers. Various other forms of tax cuts (again without any corresponding spending restraints). "$8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana." "Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West." Because what we need right now is even more deficit spending, even more forced wealth transfers. The article's closing paragraph contains this gem: "The rescue bill hitched a ride on a popular measure that gives people with mental illness better health insurance coverage." I don't know the details of this, but presumably it's some sort of mandate that will transfer certain insurance costs to other premium payers.

As the AP summarizes, "the long list of sweeteners [the Senate] added was designed to attract votes from various constituencies." In other words, the $700 billion transfer by itself didn't pay off enough special-interest groups.

And if all that weren't comforting enough, Victor Davis Hanson offers a (http://townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2008/10/02/americas_nervous_breakdown_-_and_the_worlds) a heartening preview of the foreign-policy implications of America's economic woes.

This thought has been crossing my mind quite a lot lately: certain things are starting to feel altogether too much like the decaying world of Atlas Shrugged.

But, hey, who is John Galt?

Gordon Explains CO Ballot Shakeup

October 2, 2008

State Senator Ken Gordon provides important news about this year's ballot. I disagree with some of his analysis, but I'll save those comments for another time.

I got my (now outdated) Blue Book in the mail a day or two ago; it's also (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/2008Bluebookmainpage.htm) online.There are now 14, not 18, ballot measures. Following is Gordon's message:

* * *

When something dramatic happens in Colorado politics, I like to send out a "Flash Update" so that people on my email list can be the first on their block to know.

I just walked over to the Capitol from the press conference where Governor Ritter and members of the labor and business community announced an agreement that affects seven of the ballot measure on this fall's ballot. This qualifies as dramatic.

The genesis of the problem was a decision by a businessman to put Amendment 47 on the ballot. Amendment 47, called by its proponents "Right to Work," makes it impossible for employees to vote for a union shop. This makes it very hard for unions to organize because every employee of a business gets the benefit of the unions' collective bargaining whether or not they support the union. There is no incentive for an employee to pay union dues. "Right to Work" has been proposed numerous times in the legislature and has never passed. Employees earn less money in "Right to Work" states and have fewer benefits. The unions call it the "Right to Work for Less."

In response, unions put Amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 on the ballot. These measures created criminal responsibility for business executives, required an explanation for the termination of an employee, required businesses to give health care to all workers and created additional remedies for injured workers. Business felt that if these measures passed new businesses would avoid Colorado, and businesses already here would leave.

Negotiations around removing all of the measures have been going on for months. Most of the business community felt that the labor-business climate in Colorado was fine, and that they didn't need "Right to Work," so they tried to persuade its backers to remove it. They were unsuccessful.

The agreement announced today was that labor would withdraw Amendments 53, 55, 56, and 57, and the mainstream business community will help labor oppose "Right to Work," which is Amendment 47 and two other Amendments (49 and 54) which are problematic for labor. The Labor-Business combined message is "Oppose Amendments 47, 49 and 54."

Governor Ritter helped broker this deal, and it seems that both the labor and mainstream business community acted like responsible adults. The proponents of Amendment 47 were excessively ideological and rigid, not acting in the best interests of Colorado.

This whole topic raises questions about the use of ballot measures and the relative ease for monied interests to get matters on the ballot. It is an argument for Ref O which makes it somewhat harder to get Constitutional Amendments on the ballot, but this is a topic for more discussion at a later date. I wanted to get this out quickly, so I will end now.

As always, don't hesitate to write back with comments or questions, and feel free to forward or republish this email in any format.

Sincerely,

Ken Gordon
Majority Leader
Colorado Senate

Palin Lets Biden Disparage Free Market

October 3, 2008

In the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, Palin proved that she has no understanding of the free market and no ability to defend it.

Moderator Gwen Ifill (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html) asked about the mortgage crisis: "[T]he next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown. Who do you think was at fault? I start with you, Governor Palin. Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?"

Palin answered, "Darn right it was the predator lenders..."

No, it wasn't.

Yaron Brook explains the real causes of the crisis in an (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html) article for Forbes. Brook points out that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the government-sponsored, government-regulated mortgage giants," composed only one aspect of the "massive control over the housing and financial markets" exercised by the federal government. Brook notes that "for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act." The purpose of Freddie and Fannie was to "purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government." In addition to these problems, "the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable." Finally, the federal government's "quasi-official policy of 'too big to fail'" communicated to lenders that, if they got into trouble, the federal government would pump in billions of tax dollars—which seems to be the policy now headed through Congress.

So federal politicians encouraged and required risky lending, and now many of these same politicians blame the non-existent "free market" for the problem.

Thanks to Palin's ignorant remarks, Biden's repetition of this lie was as easy as hunting moose in a barn.

Palin called for "government strict oversight," implying that the problem was caused by a lack of such oversight, rather than the presence of foolish federal controls.

Biden was only too happy to amplify Palin's false assumption. Biden said the problem was the Republican tactic of "cutting regulations;" he blamed "the tried and true Republican response, deregulate, deregulate. ... You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself." Morever, "John [McCain] recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

Biden's message is that the free market doesn't work, deregulation equals the free market, deregulation has failed, and government controls are the alternative to deregulation.

Unfortunately, Republicans often have used the term "deregulation" because they don't want to talk about the fundamental issue: individual rights. Because they don't favor individual rights. As Bush II has proved, Republicans (in general, not in every particular) are enthusiastic about government controls and political power.

The problem is that the term "regulation" is a package deal. "Regulation" means to make regular. Well, we want things to be regular, don't we, as opposed to irregular? For example, the Constitution grants to Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..." Those of us of the individual-rights persuasion like to think of that clause as granting to Congress the ability to "make regular" trade; that is, to free it of state interference.

Government plays a crucial regulatory role. The proper role of government is to protect individual rights. In the sphere of economics, that means protecting property rights and the right to contract. It means fighting fraud. It means eliminating the initiation of force. In those functions, the government regulates—makes regular—the economy. Protecting individual rights is regulation.

But what Biden means by "regulation" is a host of federal controls that violate, rather than protect, individual rights. These rights-violating controls do not make the economy "regular;" they make it irregular and chaotic. For example, the federal controls that forced lenders to make risky loans are "regulations" of this sort. The mortgage crisis is a crisis not of the free market, not of the regulation of protecting individual rights, but of the "regulations" of government controls that violate rights of property and contract.

What we need is not some out-of-context "deregulation" or "regulation." What we need is a government that protects individual rights rather than violates them. That is the very definition of the free market. That is what Joe Biden condemns, and what Sarah Palin cannot even conceive.

Update: As disturbed as I've been by the Rocky Mountain News's endorsement of the bailout, the paper has done a good job at pointing to the federal policies that caused the crisis. In its Friday editorial, the News rightly (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/02/not-knockout-debate/) complains that Palin "let Biden largely escape with his (and Obama's) tedious riff that the current implosion on Wall Street is largely a result of Republican deregulation—when Democrats were by and large the strongest defenders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's trip into the wild side of lending."

Comment by Rick "Doc" MacDonald: Agreed. Palin missed a lot of counter punch opportunities and could have scored even more point by including government interference and bad regulation as a villain. She showed that she has a lot of personality and charisma, but not much in the way of intellect or understanding of current economic issues.

Comment by Kendall J.: Ari, I agree in general. However at the same time that "protecting individual rights" is a bit abstract. John Lewis was on a radio show tonight, and he was fantastically concrete without losing the idea behind the principles. He countered any claim that deregulation caused the mess. He framed it as government interference, gave concrete examples, and then called for "Emergency DE-regulation" so that businessmen were not hamstrung and could use their minds to find the best solutions. It was a concrete and principled defense simultaneously. I think a lot of what I see from Objectivists today is a principled defense that is not brought down to the inductive level for the average smart reader.

Comment:

Palin was right—don't forget the most egregious problem in this matter was the poorly managed credit default swaps (CDSs) that became untenable for the AIG's of the world. They gambled their companies' very existences—but clearly it was never their company to gamble away, was it. They screwed countless investors and shareholders and ultimately the nation by their greedy practices. This is precisely why McCain called for SEC Chairman Cox to be fired.

The fact that Biden and liberals will forever call for regulation of everything aside from their own never-ending, misguided redistribution mantra (all of which sucks)—AND—the fact that the liberal government urged on bad mortgages (which was not deregulation, but rather overregulation, which always sucks)—can't be used to hide the fact that Wall Street appears to have required a bailout due mostly because of the risky bets they made by abusing CDSs. There does need to be regulation in that BS.

You can argue they would not have abused CDSs had there not been government mortgage mandates—but—one can easily argue that the enormity of this crisis, which is certainly not covered by a mere $700B, would never have grown to its magnitude had a greedy Wall Street not believed they were making some really, really good bets—and they were really, really wrong. And as I wrote above, that will require new regulation.

Don't blame Palin for Biden's stupidity—he's earned that all on his own and mostly at the American taxpayer's expense for 35 years. Did you hear that chump argue for bankruptcy court judges to forgive principal?!! That ain't Palin, that's Biden.

The problem McCain/Palin have is the same for every politician on the right of center. It's easy in 10 seconds for Obama, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, and Marx to argue for redistribution to an uneducated, class-envying populace. It's not easy in itty-bitty, moderator-controlled sound bites to educate the masses that they should focus on generating more personal income as opposed to their lazy-butt redistribution schemes.

Oh well ... this problem is so huge it's likely too late to do much of anything about it. My recommendation is take a nice, expensive vacation and then return in time to get a good place in line for your weekly government-issued bag of flour and bucket of gruel ... it's all right around the corner.

Comment: Really, Anonymous? How was it that EVERYONE on Wall Street was sideswiped by the crisis? How come NO ONE saw it coming? Were they ALL "greedy" and incompetent, bad betters? No one saw it coming because there was no way they could have understood the magnitude of the situation they were facing: A total government takedown of the economy. It started with the fiat currency, add GSEs, add the CRA, then when that causes a real estate bust but no general economic takedown, attack the record books with mandatory mark-to-market accounting. No matter how productive they are, no one can survive a government decree declaring their assets to be near worthless. Start the write-downs, capital reserve reqs kick in, everyone cash out their assets, say good-night.

Burton Continues to Dodge Amendment 48 Implications

October 4, 2008

Kristi Burton (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/reply-to-kristi-burton-on-amendment-48.html) has been tight-lipped about the legal implications of Amendment 48. She's admitted she wants to ban "abortion on demand," but she hasn't discussed related issues, such as criminal penalties, birth control, and fertilization treatments.

At least she has (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/03/personhood-measure-scares-opponents/) offered one more minor detail about her take on the measure:

"Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save," she said. "If she were to die, the baby would die, too. It should be up to the mother and family and the doctor to save the life that can be saved instead of letting both die."

But that statement is hardly revealing. Burton again dodges the real questions.

Obviously, if the pregnant woman and the egg/embryo/fetus certainly would die without treatment, saving one "person" is better than losing two. But medical choices rarely involve such clear-cut risks.

Notably, Burton outright admits that it might be possible to save the fetus and kill the woman. Is that not the meaning of the statement, "Doctors should be able to decide which life they can save"? If a fertilized egg is arbitrarily declared a person, legally its life must be weighed against the life of the pregnant woman.

According to some opponents of abortion, not even an ectopic pregnancy necessarily threatens the very life of the mother. See page 10 of the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper by Diana Hsieh and me. In other cases, such as cancer treatment, the mother wouldn't necessarily die prior to child birth, so her ability to get treatment would depend also on its impact on the egg/embryo/fetus.

The upshot is that doctors would be legally bound—subject to criminal prosecution—to weigh the life of the fertilized egg against the life of the woman, in all cases in which death of the woman were not a certainty. Because such decisions would be second-guessed by prosecutors and the courts, doctors often would err on the side of inaction. The inevitable result would be more deaths of women. As Diana and I summarize, (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life."

Letter to Mark Udall Regarding the Bailout

October 4, 2008

Dear Congressman Udall,

I am writing to thank you for voting against the so-called "bailout," not just once, but both times. That showed real guts, and the sort of independence that Colorado could use in the U.S. Senate. You took on not only the bullying of the Bush administration and "leaders" of your own party, but their sycophantic media, which promoted the bailout in "news" stories and editorials alike.

For the most part, the American public saw past the ruse and opposed the bailout. Most members of Congress and most journalists failed the American people on this matter, utterly. But you stood with us.

I'd also like to thank Senator Allard for voting against the bailout, along with Congress members John Salazar, Marilyn Musgrave, and Doug Lamborn.

The mortgage crisis was caused by ill-conceived federal controls—particularly programs that encouraged and even required risky lending—and the bailout will just add more of the same. What we need are not massive new wealth transfers and more concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats, but a truly free market, in which the government rigorously protects rights of property and contract, roots out fraud and deception, and otherwise leaves people free to manage their own affairs and enter into voluntary agreements.

I was already already going to vote for you, though reluctantly, based on your (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) strong endorsement of the separation of church and state and religious freedom. Now, even though I disagree with you on many other issues, I will be proud to vote for the man who, knowing the bailout was wrong, stood up and courageously voted against it.

Please note, however, that I will vigorously oppose you if ever you take the wrong side and try to reduce or restrict the liberty of the American people. Your recent vote, though, gives me some hope that you will remain open to reason and honest argument, and closed to the shrill pleadings of interest groups looking for political favoritism.

In our age, political cynicism is the coin of the realm. But this time your vote was pure as gold. I sincerely hope you have struck a vein, and I will vote for you for the office of U.S. Senate with that hope.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

Harsanyi Lists More Bailout Pork

October 4, 2008

A few days ago, I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/media-cheerleaders-push-bailout.html) mentioned a few items of pork that the Senate loaded into the so-called bailout. Dave Harsanyi of The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10623376) has listed a few more:

Republican New Hampshire's Judd Gregg, who was actually referred to as the money man, told America, "This is not a time for rhetoric; it's a time for responsibility."

Responsibility? Does Gregg mean the inclusion of $6 million for the manufacturers of kids' wooden arrows? ... How about $128 million cost-recovery for motor-racing tracks? Are the film and television industries in such desperate straits that they need $10 million? At least we know those perks were inducement for three votes.

But then, what is the anxiety-ridden citizen to make of the $192 million headed to the Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum producers? Or the $33 million in credits headed to business interests in gorgeous American Samoa?

The bailout is quite possibly the biggest politician- and media-perpetrated scam in my lifetime. This is organized theft on a massive scale.

Comment by Michael: This bailout shows that Congress is not in touch with reality and, in its hubris, believes it is never accountable for their misuse of public funds. I've listed over a dozen egregious examples of pork stuffed into this disastrous bailout of irresponsible parties by the responsible taxpayers. As a result, I've setup bailoutpetition.com. Please sign the petition to repeal this disastrous bailout bill. It's the only thing left we can do to show Congress how angry we are and to prevent this colossal disaster. www.bailoutpetition.com

Comment by Rick "Doc" MacDonald: Some of the things included, like the alternative minimum tax repeal, were good things, but inappropriate for this bill. The claim is that because the Senate can't originate a bill, they had to use one that had been previously submitted to bring up in the house. Pundits describe this as like watching sausage being made. As a young man, I used to work in a meat packing plant and have observed sausage making first hand. This is not sausage making; it is far worse.

State Senator Greg Brophy Endorses Amendment 48

October 6, 2008

In a recent e-mail, State Senator (http://gregbrophy.net/) Greg Brophy writes:

Amendment 48 Yes—Ignore all the hype over this one, it is really a straightforward question. Should all abortions except those where the life of the mother is threatened be banned in Colorado? That is what A48 really does and it is purposefully written to challenge Roe v. Wade. It doesn't ban contraception, it does ban RU 486, and it would raise a due process question in those rare pregnancies where the life of the mother is at stake. In those cases, the unborn baby would be represented in a court action as well as the mother.

At least Brophy is forthright about some of the implications regarding the measure. As Diana Hsieh and I write in (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," the measure is indeed intended to overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion in Colorado—even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks. Brophy also admits that the life of the egg/embryo/fetus would be weighed against the life of the mother. Legal action could prevent or delay an abortion from proceeding in cases of health risks—causing the deaths of some women. Doctors who performed an abortion over health concerns also could face "court action"—i.e., criminal prosecution—preventing treatment in some cases and causing the deaths of some women.

While Brophy doesn't come right out and say it, he believes some women should die in order to legally protect fertilized eggs as "persons."

Laughably, on his web page Brophy claims to endorse "Limited government" and "Personal responsibility." Exactly how is subjecting women and their doctors to "court action" for health-related (or any) abortions—thereby using government force to kill some women—an instance of "limited government?" Brophy, along with many other Colorado Republicans, have proven that they are mortal enemies of individual rights.

I sent Brophy the following question via e-mail:

In a recent e-mail, you state that Amendment 48 "doesn't ban contraception." However, a popular birth-control pill says right in its prescription literature that it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Do you believe that the pill or IUD can do that? If so, do you advocate a ban on those forms of birth control? (Yes, I intend to publicize your answer.)

I referred him to pages 3-5 of the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper.

When Brophy encourages voters to "Ignore all the hype," he is asking them to ignore some of the real legal implications of Amendment 48 and impose religious dogma through force of law.

Sock Puppets for Amendment 49

October 6, 2008

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJwUv0vWQw8) This is why I love Jon Caldara. This is a fun, low-budget, and effective explanation of Amendment 49. I endorse the measure, despite the facts that it shouldn't be a constitutional matter and I'm tired of Republicans pretending that all of their problems stem from financial disparity. The problem with Colorado Republicans is not that the government funds union lobbying, but that Colorado Republicans often run on their worst ideas and flub their few good ones. Nevertheless, I think Amendment 49, which prevents government from diverting money from the paychecks of government employees to unions, is a good idea. As Jon's sock puppets note, the measure in no way interferes with the ability of government employees to give money to whatever groups they like, only the government can't "help" them do it.

Hsieh Deciphers Amendment 48 Polls

October 7, 2008

Diana Hsieh issued the following media release today. I'll have some comments of my own about the recent polls in the near future.

MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT

Nearly 40% of Colorado Voters Seek to Destroy Reproductive Rights

Sedalia, Colorado / October 7, 2008

Contact: Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and founder of the Coalition for Secular Government [omitted]

A poll of likely voters shows strong support for Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would grant the full legal rights of persons to fertilized eggs. The survey, conducted on September 28th by Rasmussen Reports with 500 likely voters, shows that 39% plan to vote for the measure, 50% to vote against it, while 11% are unsure. (See (http://tinyurl.com/4huary) http://tinyurl.com/4huary.)

Such strong support for Amendment 48 should surprise anyone familiar with the barrage of criticism published in Colorado media in recent weeks. Critics of the measure have warned voters of its destructive effects on Colorado's laws if passed and enforced. They have shown that it would usher in a near-total ban on abortion, outlaw the birth control pill and in vitro fertilization, and subject pregnant women to police controls. Yet these latest poll results are basically unchanged from a June poll, also by Rasmussen. (See (http://tinyurl.com/4mm59r) http://tinyurl.com/4mm59r.)

Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," argues that the broad support for Amendment 48 is driven by a deeply-held faith pretending to be "pro-life."

The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that 41% of Colorado voters believe that "life begins at conception." That number explains the strong support for Amendment 48, despite the media barrage against it. "People who endorse that slogan regard a fertilized egg as a new, whole person with a right to life," Hsieh said. "They regard the enormous sacrifices forced on real men and women by the measure as insignificant—or even ennobling. Their vote is based on faith, without regard to the real-world requirements of human life and happiness. It's not 'pro-life' at all."

"To effectively combat measures like Amendment 48, the whole 'pro-life' ideology must be challenged at its root," Hsieh said. "A mushy slogan like 'it simply goes too far' is unconvincing, even misleading. It doesn't speak to the fundamental dispute. Worse, it suggests that some compromise—like banning most abortions—would be acceptable."

"Instead, reproductive rights must be defended on principle, based on the objective facts of human nature. With regard to abortion, the fact is that a fetus or embryo is only a potential person so long as encased within and dependent on the woman. Once born, the infant is a new individual person with the right to life. That view ought to be the basis for the laws of a
free society. Any alternative—any attempt to grant rights to the embryo or fetus—would violate the rights of pregnant women."

For a principled defense of reproductive rights, see the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," available at (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf, particularly the section "Personhood and the Right to Abortion," pages 10-13.

Comment: The supporters of amendment 48 need to be honest. Two consequences of this amendment are: 1) Common birth control such as the "birth control pill", the IUD, and spermicides will become illegal. 2) In vitro fertilization will become illegal. Who is going to check all of those sanitary napkins? Every menstrual cycle will potentially become a crime scene if this amendment passes.

Rocky Recycles Burton's Evasions on Amendment 48

October 8, 2008

On September 19, the Pagosa Daily Post published an op-ed by Kristi Burton that was filled with distortions and evasions. I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/reply-to-kristi-burton-on-amendment-48.html) replied. Then, on September 25, The Denver Post published the same op-ed. That didn't surprise me, because nobody can actually sustain an argument in favor of Amendment 48. But it did surprise me that the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/07/burton-48-restores-value-of-every-human/) published virtually the same op-ed yesterday; usually the papers try not to publish the same pieces.

My (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/reply-to-kristi-burton-on-amendment-48.html) previous reply answers Burton's main points. However, given the widespread distribution of her piece, I thought I'd extend my reply here.

Burton writes: "Let me make it clear: Amendment 48 is about empowering you, the voter."

Note that that's her leading argument. And it's completely meaningless. Every ballot measure "is about empowering you, the voter," to decide the measure. But in a deeper sense, it is not about "empowering" the voter, for there is no such thing. Rather, it is about empowering those with the faith-based view that a fertilized egg is a person to impose their police state on the rest of us.

To reiterate, Amendment 48 would ban all abortions except perhaps to save the woman's life. It would force women to carry their pregnancies to term even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks (and obviously in cases in which the woman decides she is unprepared to bear a child). It would necessitate criminal penalties—perhaps including the death penalty if current statutes remain in force—for abortion. It would ban practically all fertility treatments. It would ban the birth-control pill, IUD, and other forms of birth control. For details, see (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" by Diana Hsieh and me.

Burton writes, "It's about allowing the democratic process to make decisions that have been made by special-interest groups for the last 40 years while using your taxes for their own gain."

This is ridiculous. These "decisions" have been made individually by millions of women and their partners, the Supreme Court, and various politicians and activists. True, some tax dollars have gone to Planned Parenthood, which I oppose (because I oppose the transfer of tax dollars for any health-related expense). But obviously that issue is separable from the matter of abortion. (This should serve as a warning to the left, however: if you keep begging for tax funds, you keep giving the religious right more opportunities to control the funded organizations.)

Burton claims she wants to ensure "our laws are built on honest premises." That's a laugh; she lies in the same op-ed by claiming the "Personhood Amendment doesn't change the constitution in any way." That line remains inexcusable (and I'm frankly amazed that the state's major newspapers have let her get away with the obvious distortion). Amendment 48 is a constitutional amendment.

Burton writes:

The words we choose matter. Mendez continually referred to newly formed persons as "fertilized eggs." This is a familiar strategy. In the same way, there's a reason why abortion proponents use the term "pro-choice." It shifts the debate away from the ugly reality of abortion. The repeated use of the term "fertilized egg" robs the developing human of personhood, just as the word "fetus" dehumanizes a developing baby.

There's a reason why opponents of Amendment 48 use the term "fertilized egg." The reason is that Amendment 48 itself uses that language. Amendment 48 would add the following new section to the state's constitution: "As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

At least Burton grants that she wants to outlaw "abortion" of a fertilized egg even before it implants in the uterus, the usual marker of pregnancy.

Burton commits the same fallacy of which she accuses her opponents. She calls a fertilized egg a "person," as if that arbitrary definition alone can carry the debate. The difference is that she has never offered a single, coherent argument as to why a fertilized egg is a person.

By contrast, Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) offer a detailed argument as to why it's not. So it's correct to refer to a "fertilized egg" as a "fertilized egg," but it is wrong to refer to it as a "person," as Burton does.

But Burton doesn't have any actual arguments to back up her position, she just has faith. She can't even be bothered to discuss most of the measure's implications.

Some weeks ago, I suggested to a friend a set of questions that I wish Burton would answer. Perhaps in a future op-ed, she'll address these points. I'll not hold my breath. Here are the questions:

1. Do you believe that the birth-control pill or IUD may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus?

2. Do you believe that the birth-control pill, IUD, or any other form of birth control should be banned?

3. At what risk to the woman's life, if any, do you believe an abortion should be legal, and who should be the final authority in deciding such matters? (Note: Burton (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/burton-continues-to-dodge-amendment-48.html) has granted that she would allow abortion if otherwise the mother certainly would die, but she still needs to address the real issue of what to do about weighing uncertain risks and health problems that are not immediately life-threatening.)

4. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization that may result in destroyed or frozen embryos should be banned?

5. What criminal penalty do you believe is appropriate for women who get abortions? What about their doctors?

6. Do you believe that women should be forced to carry to term fetuses known to suffer Down Syndrome or other serious health problems?

7. Do you believe that abortion should be completely banned in cases of rape and incest?

8. Do you believe that all stem-cell medical research should be banned?

9. Why do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person (as opposed to "life" or something that contains human DNA)?

The Visitor

October 8, 2008

The Visitor is a great movie of both powerful writing and acting. First the basic story: Walter Vale is a lonely, burned-out college professor who meets a young couple when he shows up at his city apartment and finds the two living there. Okay, so it's a device: the couple are the victim of a scam; they thought they had rented the apartment. Obviously, the three become friends, and this opens up Vale in some interesting ways. The major theme revolves around Vale seeing the meaningless of his life—and then finding meaning in new friends and hobbies.

Politically, the movie is a sustained and emotional critique of America's immigration policies. The couple are immigrants and in the country illegally. Vale's anger at irrational and immoral U.S. immigration restrictions is powerfully portrayed by actor Richard Jenkins, who is amazing in the film (as are the other major actors).

Not long ago I was talking with a smart, well-educated, affable European—who may not be able to stay in the country. I've heard enough maddening immigration stories that The Visitor steamed me. Indeed, the film's strong political theme is also a distraction, for those of us who care about this issue. See it, whether in spite of or because of the film's politics.

Schwartz Refutes Amendment 59 Claims

October 8, 2008

Brian Schwartz (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2008/10/07/amendment-59-raises-taxes/) writes for The Denver Post:

Amendment 59 would raise your taxes. [Former Colorado State Treasurer Gai] Schoettler denies this, saying that "Amendment 59 will ensure that your tax rates will stay exactly the same as they are now."

But Amendment 59 would raise taxes without raising tax rates. The Colorado Constitution guarantees taxpayers a refund when the state collects excess taxes. Amendment 59 would force us to donate this refund to a so-called "Savings Account for Education." That's a tax increase. Ms. Schoettler's mentioning constant tax rates is misleading.

A second deceit is that Amendment 59 is a "Savings Account for Education." There's a difference between education and government-funded schools. Just Google "college illiteracy." Further, Schoettler writes that 59 "frees up money for critical things our citizens need." That is, not schools. If you want to spend your own money on education not favored by politicians, tough luck. To Schoettler, the needs you want to finance with your own money are irrelevant.

Coloradans should vote down Amendment 59. Then, in a couple of years, the legislature can refer a measure to repeal the existing constitutional spending mandate for schools that generates some of the budgetary problems.

For more information, see my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/am-59-would-impose-new-forever-net-tax.html) op-ed regarding Amendment 59.

Amendment 48: Ritter's Faith-Based Strategy Backfires

October 9, 2008

Bill Ritter came out against Amendment 48 on October 7. But the way he did it actually helps the advocates of the measure.

As Tim Hoover (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10663217) reports for The Denver Post, Ritter said at a rally at the capitol, "I believe the amendment goes too far." In this line Ritter follows the slogan of the main campaign against the measure, a position that implies some restrictions on abortion, birth control, and fertility treatments would be fine. That line makes those opponents of Amendment 48 look like cowardly hypocrites. That's why Diana Hsieh and I don't repeat that line and criticize its use in (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) our paper.

But Ritter's main problem is that he tried to oppose a faith-based measure while appealing to faith. As Hoover reports, Ritter said, "In spite of the fact that I'm pro-life, I can look at this and really find reasons I think it is just such an extreme position to take... My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with church doctrine."

With this statement, Ritter granted that church doctrine should guide the law. What Ritter should have said is that as governor he has a responsibility to protect the separation of church and state, and Amendment 48 clearly seeks to impose religious dogma by force of law.

Predictably, Hoover's follow-up (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10672460) article for today carries the headline, "Bishops chide Ritter on view of personhood." Hoover reports:

The archbishop of Denver on Wednesday publicly scolded Gov. Bill Ritter... for comments he made about whether a fertilized egg is a person.

In a statement given to news outlets, Archbishop Charles Chaput, along with Auxiliary Bishop James Conley, said Ritter's comments on Amendment 48 "seriously confused" the issue. ...

Ritter's comments about the church's stance on a fertilized egg are false, the bishops said.

"Catholic teaching holds that human life is sacred from the moment of fertilization, commonly called 'conception,' to the moment of natural death," the bishops wrote in the statement. "Separating a 'fertilized egg' from the dignity of human personhood is bad theology and bad public policy.

"And Catholic public officials should know better."

Catholic bishops should know better than to push around Colorado's elected officials, who are charged with enacting and executing nonsectarian laws, not imposing Catholic doctrine on the state. But Ritter invited the rebuke by resting the matter on religious faith.

At least Bishops Chaput and Conley have reinforced what was already obvious: Amendment 48 is about religious faith, nothing else. The Catholic church regards a fertilized egg as "sacred," and that is the end of the argument.

Meanwhile, Kristi Burton, sponsor of the measure, continues her inane defense of it. Hoover reports in his first article:

"The governor's position directly contradicts the overwhelming modern scientific evidence that now recognizes what we all know in our hearts," said Kristi Burton, who sponsored Amendment 48, "from the moment of conception, a new unique individual has been created."

Notice that Burton often throws around claims about "modern scientific evidence," on the pretense that the measure somehow reaches beyond religious faith. Yet there is no substance whatsoever to her claims about "science," as Diana and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) explain (see pages 11-13 of the paper). To briefly summarize, a "unique individual" fertilized egg is still not a person, as (besides the fact that it is only a microscopic clump of cells) it is wholly contained within and dependent upon the woman's body.

At least Burton distinguishes between her cart and her horse. Science, allegedly, merely "recognizes what we all know in our hearts"—that is, what her religious faith has already asserted.

As if we needed any more lessons regarding the dangers of pandering to faith-based politics, two letters in the Rocky Mountain News also point to the problem. On September 22, I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/amendment-48-updates.html) wrote, "Then Mayo McNeil (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/22/what-bible-has-to-say-about-personhood/) quotes Genesis and Exodus to 'refute' the view that a fertilized egg is a person. Put this in the hefty folder titled, 'With Friends Like These...'"

Sure enough, on October 8 Mary Lou Fenton (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/08/biblical-interpretation-flawed/) replied:

Read further in your Bible and you will find Psalms 139:13-16:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. . . .

"All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

This is a very clear pronouncement of a divine creator who gives us life and knows us intimately. An incredible truth that invests each life with meaning, value and purpose.

There can be no doubt: Amendment 48 is a prime example of faith-based politics, the attempt to impose religious dogma by force of law and to criminally prosecute those who violate that dogma.

McNeil made essentially the same mistake that Ritter made. Rather than try to undermine Amendment 48 with his own assertions of religious faith, the governor of Colorado should boldly declare his support for the separation of church and state.

Vote No on 48, 59: Two New Web Sites

October 9, 2008

Diana Hsieh has created two new web pages criticizing Colorado's Amendments 48 and 59.

(http://www.voteno59.com/) "Vote No on Amendment 59" describes what the measure would do—and why it's a bad idea. As Diana points out, one problem with the measure is that it would expand political control of other areas:

Amendment 59 isn't about increasing funding for Colorado's government schools. Instead, the measure frees up general funds currently spent on education. So it enables politicians to spend more of your money on their pet projects.

Even the supporters of Amendment 59 admit that. The Rocky Mountain News quoted Amendment 59 supporter Carol Hedges of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute as saying that "a dedicated source of funding for schools could reduce the pressure on the general fund, and in turn allow legislators more opportunity for investing in other priorities, such as health care, higher education and transportation." The same story also quoted David Miller of the Denver Foundation as saying: "As I understand it, SAFE does more than just support education. If it passes, it would free up general fund dollars for health care, which is why the Colorado Health Foundation is a big supporter."

Hsieh's (http://www.seculargovernment.us/a48.shtml) page against 48 summarizes the paper that she and I wrote, (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," and links to related letters, releases, and articles.

For her work Diana deserves the praise of all Coloradans who care about liberty.

Allard Against the Bailout

October 10, 2008

Following is an e-mail letter I received from Senator Wayne Allard:

October 10, 2008...

Dear Ari:

Thank you for writing to me about the recent troubling activity on Wall Street. I understand your concern and appreciate your taking the time to contact me.

The U.S. economy began facing challenges last year due in large part to problems in the subprime mortgage market. The severity of the problems became quite apparent in March 2008, when Bear Stearns collapsed. At the beginning of September 2008, the federal government took control of the two housing government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Unfortunately, the difficulties that began in the subprime mortgage market had spread to other market sectors, causing Lehman Brothers to file for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch to be bought out by Bank of America. The Federal Reserve and Treasury intervened to prevent a bankruptcy filing by AIG and took over the company. Additional firms showed weakening under market pressures.

These events touched off a significant crisis of confidence in our financial markets. Without capital flowing freely, illiquidity left them virtually frozen. The frozen capital markets represent a threat not only to the financial sector, but the business sector and entire economy as well.

To prevent a financial crisis, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke released a proposal to allow the federal government to purchase up to $700 billion of the troubled, illiquid assets. These assets would be held by the government for some period of time, after which they would be sold, potentially for a profit. The Treasury Department believes this will promote market stability and help protect American families and the U.S. economy by fundamentally and comprehensively addressing the root cause of our financial system's current distress.

After receipt of the initial Treasury plan Congress made several key changes. While the legislation provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to use up to $700 billion to purchase troubled assets, the money is not available all at once. An initial amount of $250 billion is available followed by installments of $100 billion and $350 billion, upon approval of the President. The legislation establishes a Department of the Treasury insurance program for distressed assets that guarantees those assets, including mortgage backed securities, that were issued before March 18, 2008. Treasury would collect premiums from financial institutions that chose to participate. Additionally, the bill increases the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) limit from $100,000 to $250,000 through 2009. Another adjustment made was a limit placed on executive compensation or "golden parachutes" for firms in which the government acquires a significant stake. To address concerns over long term accountability, an oversight board comprised of federal banking regulators is established and a provision in the package states that if, after five years, the government has incurred losses from the program, the President must put forth a proposal for recovering government assets from firms that profited from federal assistance.

After long and careful deliberation I voted against the bailout package. Taxpayers are and have always been my number one priority. I have serious concerns that Congress held no hearings in creating this $700 billion package, nor did it use a deliberative process to provide a reasonable assurance that this proposal would even work. I am unwilling to leave a huge legacy of debt for generations to come without confidence that it would be worth the price. I have always believed that the government should live within its means and thus have opposed increasing the federal debt limit. The bill before Congress would significantly increase the national debt.

I have seen no evidence that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is in the best long term interests of taxpayers and the economy, and I also strongly oppose the additional spending provisions rolled into the bill. We shouldn't spend this kind of taxpayer money on assumptions and guesswork. I believe that Congress can find a way to unfreeze the credit markets without unfairly penalizing American families for the greed and mismanagement on Wall Street.

Congress should act to preserve our free-market tradition. We have never propped up failed businesses on Main Street; we should not prop up failure and malfeasance on Wall Street. During my remaining time in the Senate I will continue to advocate for this belief.

Sincerely,
Wayne Allard
United States Senator

Amendment 48 Sponsor Hedges on Implications

October 11, 2008

A recent debate about Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, pit the obfuscater against the appeaser, as a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/10/amend-48-debate-save-lives-or-open-a-pandoras/) story by David Montero of the Rocky Mountain News makes clear. We begin with Kristi Burton, the measure's sponsor:

She criticized those who argue that her amendment would create a legal morass because the word "person" appears in more than 20,000 state statutes.

"A definition doesn't have that power," she said. "A definition lays down the foundation . . . but it doesn't guarantee any particular result."

Yet Burton has (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/rocky-recycles-burtons-evasions-on.html) made clear that her intention with Amendment 48 is to ban abortion except to save the life of the woman. So clearly she does think that a mere definition—in reality a fundamental change in the state constitution—can "have that power," contingent on federal changes.

If Amendment 48 can ban abortion based on the legal fiction that a fertilized egg is a person, then it can also do all the other things that Diana Hsieh and I outline in our paper, (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." It can ban the birth control pill and other forms of birth control that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. It can ban fertility treatments that often involve the destruction or freezing of fertilized eggs. It can ban medical research involving fertilized eggs. And it can subject women and their doctors to criminal prosecution for obtaining an abortion or intentionally causing a miscarriage. These are not merely hypothetical scare stories; they are logical implications. True, the amendment may not be consistently interpreted or enforced, and its implementation depends on federal changes, as Diana and I write in the paper, but if the measure is implemented those other consequences naturally follow.

Against Burton, Pat Steadman said, "I think it's hard to imagine there not being unintended consequences." That response is pathetic. First, the consequence that even Burton openly advocates—a near-complete ban on abortion—is horrific. It would massively violate the rights of women of reproductive age, along with their partners and doctors, and it would lead to police-state controls. It would force women to bring to term pregnancies even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks—that is, when the health risks did not cause the woman to die first.

Second, the other consequences that Diana and I outline are fully intended and openly stated by the honest advocates of Amendment 48. Various members of the religious right openly call for bans on the pill, bans on select medical research, and severe criminal penalties—including the death penalty—for women who get abortions. It is true that Amendment 48 would have many other consequences that are unintended, but it is evil precisely because of what its backers intend.

Burton also continued her unsubstantiated assertions that a fertilized egg is a person. Montero begins, "Science now knows that life begins at the moment of conception, the initiator of the Personhood Amendment told an audience of 30 at the University of Denver Thursday night." Yet life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Burton claimed "that medical science tells us that when an egg is fertilized at conception, a human being has been created." Yet as Diana and I write in the paper, Burton relies on an equivocation on the term "human being" to fudge her case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA, and it is a potential person, but it is not an actual person. But Burton is not interested in promoting honest debate or answering her critics. Hers is an agenda of religious faith, and the facts be damned.

Big Wide World

October 11, 2008

I was reminded tonight (Friday) that I'm simply unaware of much of what goes on in the world outside my core interests. The people I usually talk with share many of those interests, so it can be easy to forget that, to many others, what I tend to follow seems alien to day-to-day life. (Even though, obviously, the issues I'm working on at any given time are the most important ones at least in the region.)

A friend of mine introduced me to a number of interesting sources, a couple of which I'll mention here.

I never read food critics. I just don't care. If I go to a restaurant—a rare event—usually it's a chain, and usually it's a chain that I already know I like. (I make an exception for Ralibertos, which serves good, fast, inexpensive, authentic Mexican food. The place even has real Mexican coke, with sugar instead of corn syrup. I joke that the hardest part was importing the flies.) The very idea of food criticism strikes me as bizarre; do enough people actually read that sort of thing to, you know, pay people to write it? I have started to cook quite a lot, and even experiment with spices and such, so I am more appreciative of good food than I was in my frozen-dinner days, but still. I don't want to have to read an article to figure out where I should eat dinner.

But then I was introduced to the work of Jason Sheehan, the food critic for Westword. I had been led to believe his column is about a lot more than food, and I was not disappointed. The first (http://www.westword.com/2008-10-09/restaurants/a-meal-at-relish-is-something-to-relish/1) article I read had me chuckling:

Because I don't ski and have no particular love for T-shirt stores or year-round Christmas shops, this was the first time I'd been to Breckenridge. It was like Boulder with all the hippies and college students replaced by day-tripping foreign tourists gabbing away in a dozen languages and sidewalk-stalking yuppies complaining about the crowds...

By the end I actually wanted to eat at the restaurant. Not enough to make a special trip to Breckenridge, but, hey, if I'm ever in the area...

The upshot is that I'll no longer be able to scan through Westword by the grocery carts or read only the occasional feature. Food. Criticism. Who knew?

Next, Ken Schroeppel writes a blog called (http://www.denverinfill.com/blog/) DenverInfill, about development projects around the city. The first thing I read tied into the global economic crisis:

I'm just happy a bunch of our big downtown tower projects managed to get their loans and get under construction before the floor dropped out on our financial markets.

I've heard recently that a number of infill projects around the downtown area have been shelved: Mestizo 31, the Spanos project in Jefferson Park, 1780 Downing, Old Market Lofts... I'm sure there are many more. The failure of any real estate project to get underway is not unusual. Regardless of how strong the economy is, some projects just don't make it off the drawing board.

Schroeppel is an urban planner. Well, I'm not exactly "planner" friendly. Yet I am persuaded of two things: first, Schroeppel is truly motivated, not by a desire to control people, but to make the world more beautiful, and, second, much of what such planners do would continue in the sort of political system that I advocate. (I like plans, I just want them to be developed in a system of property rights and voluntary associations.) I'm confident that Schroeppel and I could find many issues on which to disagree. Yet I don't have to agree with him about everything to appreciate his unique angle on local history.

While I remain happy to be a 'burb guy, with easy access to both Denver and Boulder without the need to put up with the nonsense of either, I'll take Schroeppel's blog as a reminder that cities are complicated things with a life of their own, largely invisible to most. I guess like people.

Becky Clark's Fight for Free Speech

October 11, 2008

Gus Van Horn (http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/repeal-mccain-feingold-now.html) alerted me to an important Colorado story that, somehow, I'd missed till now. Becky Clark got sued for exercising her right of free speech without filling out the right bureaucratic forms.

While I have not independently checked her story yet, Clark (http://beckyland.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/why-im-going-to-be-on-2020/) tells a fascinating tale:

Way back in the early part of 2006 our little unincorporated neighborhood of about 300 houses in Parker, Colorado was all abuzz over the efforts of two of our neighbors who thought it would be a good idea to annex into the town. After my husband and I studied the facts and talked to our neighbors, we decided we were against annexation for a variety of reasons, the most important to us being the huge sales tax increase we'd be hit with.

So, because we own a printshop and can make signs, we made a couple that said "No Annexation" and "Annexation is a permanent tax increase" and planted them in our front yard.

Our neighbors kept stopping by asking if we'd make some for them, so we did. Pretty soon the neighborhood was filled with these signs and it was pretty clear most everyone held the same opinion that we did. ...

[In July] six of us, and our printshop, were slapped with a lawsuit by two of our neighbors, the two who were for the annexation. ...

They said we were not in compliance with campaign finance laws and we needed to register as an issue committee. I had no idea what that meant and I'd never even heard the phrase "issue committee" before. ...

They wanted to shut us up. The litigation was clearly an attempt to intimidate us.

We had no choice but to file as an issue committee... It fell to me to do the paperwork, and let me tell you, it's no picnic. ...

These campaign finance laws need to be changed so no one can try to shut up the people who oppose them. After all, free speech—to me—is the free exchange of differing ideas and the right to voice them without the fear of harassment and intimidation.

What has happened to our society that people are so threatened by an honest difference of opinion that they can file suit against anyone who speaks with an opposing voice?

I think I should be able to stick a political sign in my front yard without my neighbors slapping a lawsuit on me. And I think you should be able to also.

In a (http://beckyland.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/we-win-kinda/) follow-up, Clark talks about "September 2008 when the judge finally ruled on our lawsuit. The federal judge said we should not have been sued for our speech opposing the annexation, BUT the ruling did nothing to stop future abuses of campaign finance laws in Colorado or elsewhere. The decision also lets stand the burdensome red tape required under Colorado law for grassroots groups that simply want to speak out about issues on the ballot."

Clark also (http://beckyland.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/ready-for-my-close-up/) reports that she's been interviewed by 20/20 for a story that will air October 17.

Stay tuned. I need to read a lot more about the details of this case, but so far Clark's account squares with my understanding of Colorado's campaign finance laws. Could Clark be to free speech what Kelo was to property rights?

Can you imagine somebody like Sam Adams filing "issue committee" paperwork with the government?

Who'd have thought that America's Republican candidate for president would join forces with the socialist left to impose censorship—or that the American people would let them get away with it.

John Lewis vs. EPA Tyranny

October 11, 2008

On October 18, John Lewis of Duke University will speak in Arvada. His topic: "A Call to Action: Understanding and Defeating the EPA's Plan for Environmental Dictatorship." The talk is sponsored by Front Range Objectivism.

(http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/cal/2008-10-18) Read the details, and rsvp by Monday, October 13.

Amendment 48: Letters and Replies

October 12, 2008

Today the Rocky Mountain News features a couple of online letters regarding Amendment 48, along with replies.

Dan Kushmaul (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/11/amendment-48s-simplicity-its-weakness/) writes:

A fertilized egg is not an individual. It has the potential to be a person, or two people, or many. If we declare a fertilized egg a person, does that mean identical twins are legally one individual? If a fertilized egg is a person or persons, then any contraception or procedure that prevents implantation, or perhaps even fertilization, will constitute depriving a person of life—murder. Do we really want to criminalize IUDs, condoms, and the pill, and force in vitro fertilization clinics to implant every egg they fertilize?

Kushmaul's comments point to some of the absurdities of the measure. They do not, however, get to the root of why a fertilized egg is not a person; for that, please read the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper by Diana Hsieh and me. A fertilized egg is not an "individual" person—it is not a person at all—but it is an individual fertilized egg, regardless of how many people it might become. The problem is that the advocates of the measure routinely equivocate on terms like "human being," "individual," etc., reading into those terms personhood where none actually exists.

Somebody called "LetsThink" posts a reply to which I responded:

"LetsThink" asks, "Can you tell us with absolutely no question, when Life begins???"

That question is irrelevant. Amendment 48 does not define when "life" begins; it (arbitrarily) defines when personhood begins. Life does not begin at conception; life precedes conception. Both the sperm cell and pre-fertilized egg are alive. Life is a never-ending chain that goes back to the first living things. So the only sensible answer to the question is "around four billion years ago."

"LetsThink" denies that "the baby is part of the mother." But that statement is ambiguous. The fertilized egg is not an element of the woman's own bodily functions, as a kidney is. The fertilized egg contains a unique set of human DNA. So, no, a fertilized egg is not like a kidney in that way. But a fertilized egg (through the fetal stage) is entirely contained within and completely dependent upon the woman's body, and that fact is central to the issue of personhoon. Biological distinction, in the sense of existing independently, physically apart from another person, is a necessary condition for personhood.

"LetsThink" declares, without offering a single example and with loaded language, "It's time for Abortionists to stop lying." No, it's time for "LetsThink" to start telling the truth.

For a complete discussion of the horrific consequences of Amendment 48, and a more detailed explanation of why a fertilized egg is not a person, please see the paper by Diana Hsieh and me titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
(http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

L. Fortier (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/11/amendment-48-opens-dangerous-door/) points out that a common alternative to legal abortion are "back-alley abortions." As Diana and I point out, that argument becomes relevant only once it is established that a fertilized egg is not a person. Parker is correct in writing, "Amendment 48 also includes birth control pills and could lead to prosecution of parents and doctors after in vitro procedures wherein extra fertilized eggs are disposed of. This is a dangerous door to open."

"LetsThink" posts another reply, to which I responded:

"LetsThink" claims, "There is no defense for abortion." Yet implicit within "LetsThink's" other statements is the beginning of just such a defense. While "LetsThink" arbitrarily conflates a fertilized egg with a born "baby"—despite the obvious and radical differences between the two—"LetsThink" also points out that a fertilized egg is merely a "potential" person, not an actual one. A fertilized egg into its early development doesn't even have any organs. More importantly, it is completely contained within and biologically dependent upon the woman's body.

But "LetsThink's" post does serve an important function: it reminds us that Amendment 48 is about religious faith. It is an attempt to enforce religious dogma through force of law. Notably, existing Colorado statutes define first-degree murder as intentionally killing a "person"—a crime subject to life in prison or the death penalty.

Diana Hsieh and I summarize and detail in our paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life:"
(http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

Perhaps someday an advocate of Amendment 48 will actually attempt to reply to the arguments of that paper. But I doubt it.

AP Details Palin's Tax-Funded Church Tours

October 13, 2008

I actually meant to place (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/ap-details-palins-tax-funded-church.html) this post here, but now that it's been up I'll leave it. The upshot is that Sarah Palin used tax funds as governor to attend religious events and used her political offices to work against abortion rights and support faith-based welfare. Read the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/11/governor-palin-times-bonds-church-and-state/) article from the Associated Press for more.

Mark Your Colorado Ballot for Liberty

October 13, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081013/COLUMNISTS/810129979/1021&parentprofile=1062&title=Mark%20your%20ballot%20for%20liberty) was published on October 13, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press. On the same topic, see also (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/10/diana-hsiehs-2008-voting.shtml) Diana Hsieh's voting recommendations.

Mark your ballot for liberty

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We suggest a single standard as you mark your ballot: liberty. If a measure advances liberty, vote for it. If not, vote no.

The federal government has been spending our money like there's no tomorrow, and state Democrats have spent the extra billions brought in by Referendum C. No matter how much of our money we give them, politicians and special interests will always want more. Thus, we face several new proposals to hike taxes.

People have the right to spend their income as they see fit. It's wrong to force Peter to pay for Paul's needs, even if 51 percent of the voters allow it.

Vote no on Amendment 59, which would permanently eliminate refunds under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. This is a forever net tax increase. It is also a blank check. While its advocates call it a "Savings Account for Education," it would free up general funds for whatever politicians want. Special interests are already lining up to take a chunk of your money.

Mesa County voters should reject 3A and 3B, which would raise taxes for schools run by politicians, bureaucrats, and unions. We spend an absurd amount on education for generally pathetic results. People have the right to spend their money on the educational services they want, whether for themselves or others.

In Grand Junction, voters face 2A and 2B. Vote no. These are forever net tax increases. Local politicians need to allocate existing funds more prudently, not demand more. The city refers to an unsafe city court and security problems in the evidence room, yet your elder author has spoken with officers who believe improvements could be achieved at low cost. Don't be fooled when advocates point to popular expenses; the measures, like Amendment 59, sign a blank check at taxpayers' expense.

We hope the residents of Fruita vote down 2C, which would unjustly force some people to fund a community center they don't want that undermines some local businesses.

For more good discussion of the local measures, see Gene Kinsey's blog at LivingTheGrandLife.blogspot.com.

At the state level, the most dangerous ballot measure is Amendment 48, which would ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks, subject to severe criminal penalties. It would also ban the birth control pill and fertility treatments. See "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us.

Amendment 46, which would eliminate race-based hiring and admissions in government, wouldn't accomplish much, but it would reinforce the crucial principle that all people are equal under the law.

We don't like 47, which interferes with the freedom of contract between employers and employees. Unions have undue power due to federal controls, but the answer is not state controls.

Vote yes on 49, which would stop the government from transferring funds from the paychecks of its employees to unions. We don't care if you contribute to unions, we just don't want that to be a government function.

Yes on 50; this would modestly lift gambling limits. No on 51, the sales tax for the disabled. If you think the disabled deserve more of your money, then please give it to them. Just don't force everyone else to follow your choices in charitable giving.

No on 52; the state constitution is no place to micromanage highway funding. No on 54; this limitation on political spending by government contractors infringes free speech. No on 58, another tax hike. Energy companies deserve to keep the money they earn.

We have no problem with Referendum L, which would let 21-year-olds serve in the legislature. Frankly, if more legislators could muster the maturity of a 21-year-old, we'd be pleased. Measures M and N repeal obsolete provisions; that's fine.

Referendum O would make it harder to amend the state's constitution. We like that. Contrary to the assertions of some of our conservative friends, the ability to change a state constitution via petition is not what the First Amendment is getting at. The First Amendment Center notes that, under the First Amendment, petitioning means "any nonviolent, legal means of encouraging or disapproving government action, whether directed to the judicial, executive or legislative branch."

The initiative process necessarily falls within government rules. And we think those rules make it far too easy to amend the constitution by popular vote. We do not advocate majority rule; we advocate individual rights. A separation of powers, with distinct branches of government and indirect popular oversight, provides the best hope for protecting individual rights, though certainly that's not sufficient.

O requires signatures from each congressional district for constitutional changes, further separating power geographically. We're not thrilled that O makes it easier to make statutory changes by popular vote, but we can live with the trade-off.

What do we need beyond thoughtful structures of governance? A populace that takes seriously our heritage of liberty and works to protect it.

AP Details Palin's Tax-Funded Church Tours

October 13, 2008

The Associated Press has (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/11/governor-palin-times-bonds-church-and-state/) published an eye-opening report on Sarah Palin's use of her office to promote religion in Alaska. The AP summarizes that Palin's "record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state... Palin and her family billed the state $3,022 for the cost of attending Christian gatherings exclusively..."

Palin has also used her political offices to undermine abortion rights and promote faith-based welfare, the AP reports.

The report makes more clear what we already knew: Palin vigorously promotes faith-based politics. We have every reason to expect her to continue to do so in the office of vice president—or president.

Gaming the Voter Guide in Jefferson County

October 13, 2008

I actually had to dig my Jefferson County voter guide out of the trash after I read (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10710847) this story from the Denver Post. Thomas Graham of Arvada totally gamed the guide.

(http://jeffco.us/jeffco/elections_uploads/JEFFCO_TABOR_2008.pdf) Here are Graham's comments, published at taxpayer expense:

The following summaries were prepared from comments filed by persons FOR the proposal: ...

Senior citizens with fixed incomes are hard-pressed to shoulder increases in property tax. These people should recognize that their reduced productivity calls for them to be replaced by the youth of our nation. This measure calls for some of the property taxes to be earmarked for: "Expanding options for career job skills and technical training to prepare students for today's work world." Half of these should be committed to the following:

Seniors on fixed incomes, to whom this school tax is burdensome, need training, as well as compassion. They must be offered the opportunity to learn how to locate more modest accommodations than those they currently occupy, and how to cope, in other communities if necessary.

This tax increase furthers the goals of our teacher unions. It is consistent with a presidential candidate's promise for change, and hope for progress toward the Socialist utopia through education. This increase could create a pad until the oppressive TABOR measures can be repealed, and the Amendment 23 extra millions for schools be made permanent. The same criteria and logic should be applied in consideration of ballot question 3B, resulting in a resounding approval of the $754 million debt. This will add as much as $69 million to the $34 million for 3A, annually, a picayune amount considering the future of our youth and well-being of the District's employees.

The Post reports:

Superintendent Cindy Stevenson said the district was prevented by law from substantially changing or eliminating Graham's comments.

Graham submitted the language minutes before the deadline for inclusion in the booklet that voters began receiving this weekend, Stevenson said.

The district's lawyers said case law prohibits "substituting their judgment with our judgment," Stevenson said.

The language is totally inappropriate (even if it's hysterical). As much as I like the spending restrictions of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, I don't like the provision that requires tax funding for the distribution of people's opinions about ballot measures.

Article X, Section 20, subsection 3(b)(v) states that a voter guide must be sent out with the following:

Two summaries, up to 500 words each, one for and one against the proposal, of written comments filed with the election officer by 45 days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the proposal. Petition representatives following these rules shall write this summary for their petition. The election officer shall maintain and accurately summarize all other relevant written comments. The provisions of this subparagraph (v) do not apply to a statewide ballot issue, which is subject to the provisions of section 1 (7.5) of article V of this constitution.

I wish TABOR had been simpler; maybe then it would not have been continually eroded.

Update: 9News (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=101749&catid=188) reports additional interesting details on the matter. It turns out that Graham is 84 years old—one of the senior citizens of which he writes.

Jefferson County Schools superintendent Cindy Stevenson said (9News reports), "This did not come from Citizens for Jeffco Schools or from the district... I want to be very clear, we cherish our seniors. The statement in there is cruel."

No, what's cruel is Stevenson's plan to forcibly take more money from citizens like Graham to spend on other people's education (and, incidentally, Stevenson's own salary). The proposal is cruel; Graham's statement merely reveals that cruelty.

Yes, FDR Made Depression Worse and Longer

October 14, 2008

As the federal government seizes control of much more of the U.S. economy—and prepares to do so at an accelerated pace, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/opinion/14brooks.html) argues David Brooks of the New York Times—it is useful to examine our greatest economic crisis, the Great Depression. Was it caused by a "failure of free markets" or by a failure of federal controls? Was it solved, or worsened, by new government interventions?

I've entered this debate in a small way through the Rocky Mountain News. After reviewing the debate there, I'll turn to the material in the books that have persuaded me that the Great Depression was caused, worsened, and lengthened by the federal controls particularly of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations.

In an October 2 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/02/not-knockout-debate/) editorial, the writers argue that, in her debate, Sarah Palin "let Biden largely escape with his (and Obama's) tedious riff that the current implosion on Wall Street is largely a result of Republican deregulation—when Democrats were by and large the strongest defenders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's trip into the wild side of lending."

I left the following comment:

I am pleased that the Rocky recognizes the true cause of the financial crisis: foolish federal controls that encouraged and forced risky lending. For more details about this, please see Yaron Brook's article for Forbes:
(http://tinyurl.com/59hs8e) http://tinyurl.com/59hs8e

Unfortunately, the Rocky, in advocating the bailout, doesn't carry its insight far enough. If federal controls got us into this mess, why should we count on them to get us out? What we need is for government to do its job of protecting rights of property and contract, and otherwise leaving us alone. The bailout is the opposite of that approach.

The Rocky seems to be concerned that, absent some magnificent expenditure of tax dollars (via deficits), the market will not correct quickly enough. I don't know how long it will take the market to correct. But it's clear that more federal intervention will only delay that correction and cause more distortion.

The Rocky might be comforted to realize that the Great Depression was primarily worsened and extended by the misguided policies of Hoover and FDR. We need not repeat those mistakes.

Johan Goldberg just came out with an article summarizing Hoover's idiotic controls:
(http://tinyurl.com/5y5f3s) http://tinyurl.com/5y5f3s

For more, see the books of Andrew Bernstein and Thomas DiLorenzo on the history of capitalism. I also just received a copy of FDR's Folly, which I expect to be good.

Somebody called "paperboy" suggested that I'm out of my mind, that I am guilty of "rationalizations and denials of objective reality," and that I'm a "neocon free-market-dolt" (despite the facts that I'm not a conservative of any stripe and the neoconservatives are enemies of free markets). Notice that "paperboy" does not make a single argument or invoke a single grain of evidence to advance his case: he merely relies on ad hominem attack.

On October 1, Vincent Carroll (who is the editorial page editor at the Rocky) blasted Mark Udall's reasons for opposing the bailout. I figured that, for Udall to vote against the bailout at all, being mired in his left-wing politics, he deserved (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/letter-to-mark-udall-regarding-bailout.html) some praise, even if Udall hardly gets his economic story straight.

Despite his occasional sympathy for economic liberty, Carroll clearly was frightened into supporting the bailout:

Steven Pearlstein, the Pulitzer Prize-winning business columnist at The Washington Post... began warning a long time ago about the perilous state of the subprime markets—even saying last year that the credit squeeze was "a financial, economic and political time bomb."

Pearlstein has spent the past couple of weeks futilely trying to persuade the public to rise above its justifiable anger over the financial crisis in order to recognize the stakes involved for the majority of us who were neither reckless lenders or reckless borrowers.

"Now let me tell you something very simple and very important," he wrote last week. "You can try to prevent a financial meltdown or you can teach Wall Street a lesson, but you can't do both at the same time.

"So which will it be?"

But that line of argument fails; even if some people opposed the bailout to "teach Wall Street a lesson," that was not the real reason to oppose it.

Carroll took on the free-market economists who opposed the bailout:

Yes, there are principled reasons for opposing the credit-market bailout—although they are more often articulated by the libertarian right than the progressive left. Libertarians understandably fear a greater permanent role for government in micromanaging financial markets if the bailout deal goes through; they also typically dismiss fears of economic collapse reminiscent of 1873 or 1929 as "ridiculous scaremongering," to quote one of them. But how can they be so sure? Which celestial authority revealed to them that this country will never have another serious depression?

Carroll's case is pretty weak. The economists I've read, such as (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html) Jeffrey Miron, rely on economic data and theory, not a "celestial authority." (Also check out Russell Roberts's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEniEYD59EE) critique of the bailout.) Meanwhile, why does Carroll think the bailout will do any good? Has he elevated Henry Paulson to the level of a celestial authority?

I dashed off a quick (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/13/carroll-too-quick-to-invoke-depression/) letter that the Rocky published on October 13:

At least the Rocky's Vincent Carroll recognizes that many offer good reasons to oppose the bailout ("Playing to the crowd," On Point, Oct. 1), but he is too quick to liken the modern situation to the period before the Great Depression.

The Depression was set off by the federal controls of the Hoover administration, but "FDR's economic policies made the Great Depression much worse" and "caused it to last much longer than it otherwise would have," economist Thomas DiLorenzo writes in his history of American capitalism. We have more to fear from new, misguided federal controls than we do from the existing crisis.

I am grateful to Mark Udall for listening to his constituents and voting against the bailout. Meanwhile, Carroll relies more on authority than argument to make his case for the bailout.

"Anderson" comments:

Another ideological claim that the depression (or any other adverse economic doing) is/was a result of government intervention. What a simple explanation!

Let's not kid ourselves, the current crisis arose largely out of speculative greed, and I'm sure the same had something to do with the great depression as well.

"Anderson's" claim is obviously the product of leftist ideology, for which he has absolutely no backing. He just assumes that "speculative greed," rather than federal controls, caused the Great Depression.

So now is the time for some facts. I'll be relying mostly on three books: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, by historian Jim Powell; How Capitalism Saved America, by economist Thomas DiLorenzo; and The Capitalist Manifesto, by philosopher Andrew Bernstein. (I know some will be tempted to dismiss my sources out of hand because their authors adhere to different political philosophies, but I encourage readers to look at the underlying facts presented by the works.)

First some basic timelines (in case Joe Biden is reading). Calvin Coolidge served in the office of the presidency from August 1923 to March 1929. Herbert Hoover then served till March 1933. Franklin Delano Roosevelt served till April 1945. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929) peaked at 381 on September 3, 1929. Black Tuesday was October 29, 1929. By November 13, the Dow had fallen to 199. By July 8, 1932, it had fallen to 41.

There is some debate over the effects of pre-Hoover policies. Powell argues that Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, propped up the stock market by cutting the discount rate, buying British pounds with gold (making "bonds less attractive investments than stocks"), and prodding the "Federal Reserve Open Market Investment Committee to buy $200 million worth of government securities from banks, injecting that much cash into the banking system" (pages 28-29). Regardless of how one judges the effects of such measures, obviously America's investment system was hardly free market even then. Powell's account meshes with the general Austrian account, in which inflationary policies create a bubble destined to pop. DiLorenzo quotes Murray Rothbard, who claimed that from 1921 to 1929 "the money supply increased by $28.0 billion, a 61.8 percent increase..." (177) On the other side, Bernstein argues, following Richard Salsman, that the "prosperity of the 1920s was genuine, not a chimera built on air" (377). My sense is that both accounts are right; most of the gains of the '20s reflected real growth of productivity, but nevertheless pre-Hoover policies artificially inflated the stock market.

Beyond the point of how much inflationary policy contributed to the subsequent bust, the accounts are pretty much the same. Powell notes that by October 1928 the discount rate had been raised to 6 percent, in an intentional effort to quell the stock market's growth (it worked). This lead to "steady deflationary pressure on the economy," Powell quotes Milton Friedman (29).

DiLorenzo emphasizes that, even before he became president, Hoover was a "hyperinterventionist" as Secretary of Commerce (160). Importantly, before and during his presedency, Hoover worked tirelessly to artificially inflate monetary (as opposed to real) wages (163-64). This proved particularly disastrous as deflation overtook the nation.

Bernstein emphasizes that the Smoot-Hawley tariff, considered by all to be a contributer to the depth of the Great Depression, actually helped set it off. Hoover was promoting tariff protectionism by the summer of 1929, Bernstein notes. "On October 21st, an amendment to limit tariffs to agricultural products was defeated in the Senate. On October 24th, the stock market suffered its first one-day crash. On October 29th, amid rumors that Hoover would not veto the Smoot-Hawley Bill, stock prices crashed even further," Bernstein writes. Why was this significant? "Over the next three years (1930-1933), U.S. exports plunged 64% and farm exports by 60%" (378).

FDR continued Hoover's interventionist policies and dramatically expanded them, raising taxes and imposing crushing controls. Bernstein summarizes:

The interventionist schemes of the Roosevelt administration were an unmitigated economic disaster. Suffice it to say that by 1937, after more than four years of Roosevelt's policies (and after eight years of the combined Hoover-Roosevelt New Deal)—after the National Industrial Recovery Act, the abandonment of the gold standard, the tripling of taxes, more labor legislation and many similar acts of governmental interference—unemployement rose to more than ten million, and business activity fell to virtually the same low reached in 1932. (382)

DiLorenzo reinforces the point with a series of charts (pages 180-83). The first pertains to the unemployment rate, and it is reproduced below (the year precedes the percent unemployed):

1929: 3.2
1930: 8.7
1931: 15.9
1932: 23.6
1933: 24.9
1934: 21.7
1935: 20.1
1936: 16.9
1937: 14.3
1938: 19.0
1939: 17.2
1940: 14.6

If FDR was the nation's economic savior, then what explains the general lack of recovery, including the "Rosevelt recession" of 1938 with an unemployment rate of 19 percent?

The claim that FDR "saved us" from the Great Depression is simple ignorance or outright deception. Roosevelt inherited the economic problems largely created by Hoover and made them much worse.

The historical case is of obvious relevance to us today. Ominously, the Associated Press has (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10716474) described the federal government's "decision to buy shares in the nation's leading banks" as "a kind of federal intervention not seen since the Depression era."

If David Brooks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/opinion/14brooks.html) is right, and I fear he is, the Bush-Obama administrations could give us something uncomfortably close to what the Hoover-Roosevelt administrations once gave the nation. You gotta love bipartisanship.

Obama Called Antichrist by Denver Cop

October 15, 2008

Doesn't Barack Obama have enough flaws without making up bizarre fictions about him? The AP (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10717889) reports that a Denver police officer sent out an e-mail claiming that a presidential candidate—guess who—may be a harbinger of the End of Days. The e-mail stated that the "Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of Muslim descent."

Here is a comparable message (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/antichrist.asp) collected by Snopes:

According to the Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuassive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal.... the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destory everything. Is it OBAMA??

Inquiring minds want to know.

Beyond the fact that Revelation says no such thing about any antichrist, Snopes points out that "since the book of Revelation was complete by the end of the second century, but the religion of Islam wasn't founded until about four hundred years later, the notion that Revelation would have mentioned a 'Muslim' at all is rather far-fetched."

But people can read into these works basically whatever they want.

Obama's political problem is not that he is opposed to Christ, but that he seeks weaken the wall between church and state through faith-based welfare and "brotherly love" (meaning federal controls). Obama doesn't need to be the antichrist to royally screw up the U.S. economy, as I fear he'll do.

We need to worry about the real Christians and their political controls (in addition to the left's political controls), not some fantasy antichrist.

Comment by William H. Stoddard: My girlfriend received an e-mail about Obama being the Antichrist some weeks back, from someone she knew; apparently the meme is going around. What I said was, "Now wait a minute! The appearance of the Antichrist is predicted in the Revelation of St. John; supposedly it's part of the events that lead up to the Last Judgment. So if Obama is the Antichrist, doesn't that mean that voting against him is trying to thwart God's plan?" But considering the nature of the message, I was probably being much too logical.

Faith-Based Politics Costs Colorado Republicans

October 15, 2008

The following article was released by the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/) Coalition for Secular Government as a non-exclusive op-ed. It follows my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/with-palin-mccain-ignores-colorado.html) article on a similar theme regarding Sarah Palin. Here I've included additional links for reference.

Faith-based politics costs Colorado Republicans

by Ari Armstrong

Colorado is known for its Western values of independence and economic liberty. So why do Republicans, the supposed champions of those values, keep getting trounced?

Republicans can blame wealthy Democratic donors, but in large part Republicans have beaten themselves by pushing a faith-based agenda of banning abortion and stem-cell research, discriminating against homosexuals, and directing welfare dollars to religious groups. They have subverted the law to religious doctrine and weakened the wall between church and state.

Republicans also have alienated freedom-minded independents and Republicans. (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/08/churches-should-keep-out-of-politics.html) Polls released by Pew show most Americans, and half of conservatives, now oppose church involvement in politics. As Ryan Sager shows in his review of 2005 Pew data, the Interior West holds a "live and let live" philosophy, with 53 percent of residents saying homosexuality "should be accepted by society" and 59 percent saying "the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality." [See the appendix of Sager's The Elephant In the Room.]

Yet the GOP panders to its evangelical base at the expense of political victory.

This year, Republicans passed a (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/schizophrenic-republicans.html) resolution at their state convention calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Eighteen Republican candidates (http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/news/2008/05/2008-candidate-quesitonnaire-answers) signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, saying they want to ban abortion as the will of God and outlaw stem-cell medical research.

The same candidates also endorsed Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. This would lay the ground to ban all abortion except perhaps to save the mother's life, ban the birth control pill and other forms of contraception that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and ban most fertility treatments. Women would be forced to bring a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks.

True, some of these candidates, such as Congressman Doug Lamborn and congressional candidate Mike Coffman, live in safe districts for Republicans. But Libby Szabo, a candidate for state senate in District 19, does not. Her opponents have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/how-republican-libby-szabo-lost-my-vote.html) hammered her over her answers to the survey, making sure to link her views to the GOP.

Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the incumbent in a Republican district, has managed to fall behind challenger Betsy Markey in some polls (http://www.rollcall.com/news/28503-1.html) [one and (http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080827/NEWS0302/808270332) two]. Musgrave (http://musgraveforcongress.org/?q=node/2) wants to outlaw abortion, and she is most well known for sponsoring a constitutional gay marriage ban.

Republican Bob Schaffer is (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/15/schaffer-says-its-not-over-yet/) trailing Mark Udall in the polls in the U.S. Senate race in part because of Schaffer's faith-based politics. Udall (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) has written, "I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country." He opposes bans on abortion and stem-cell research. Schaffer, evoking God's will, (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/schaffer-on-abortion.html) said abortion is "always wrong."

Republicans should have learned their lesson when they lost the governership to the Democrats in 2006, when Bob Beauprez (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) touted his faith-based politics and selected a running mate of the same cloth, Janet Rowland. Like Beauprez, Rowland wanted to outlaw abortion and maintain faith-based welfare.

Yet the GOP continues to actively push its anti-abortion agenda. A (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/colorado-republican-committee-pushes.html) recent flyer "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee" urged recipients to vote for a presidential candidate who opposes abortion and who will appoint Supreme Court justices to outlaw it.

But some who are pro-choice across the board are fighting back. Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government, which issued a paper that she and I wrote titled, (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Diana's husband Paul wrote to Dick Wadhams, head of the state GOP, "Although I'm pro-free market, pro-strong national defense, and pro- gun, the position that the CO GOP has taken against abortion is a clear breach of the principle of separation of church and state." Doug Krening (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/07/gop-platform.shtml) wrote to Republican officials, "I have been a Republican for my entire voting life, but cannot endorse the GOP currently because of it's explicit endorsement of religion in government."

On September 11, Amanda Mountjoy, chair of the Colorado Republican Majority for Choice, hosted a banquet with 240 participants to oppose Amendment 48. Former Senator Hank Brown (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/hank-brown-rallies-republican-majority.html) told the crowd, "At the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."

Colorado Republicans have two options. They can respect the separation of church and state and defend individual freedom and choice, or they can continue to lose and deserve to do so.

Ari Armstrong is a writer for the Coalition for Secular Government and the editor of FreeColorado.com.

Comment by Rossputin: Ari, I think your post leaves the mistaken impression that Schaffer emphasizes social issues on the campaign trail. The vast majority of Schaffer's campaigning revolves around economics and political liberty. Yes, he is a social conservative. But, he is far less focused on social issues than Musgrave is and you do him an injustice by not making that clear.

Comment by Ari: The fact that Bob Schaffer has run away screaming from Amendment 48 means only that he sees it as a political stinker, not that he has any principled views against faith-based politics. Has Schaffer endorsed the separation of church and state? No, he has not. Has Schaffer repudiated his view that God wants us to ban all abortions? No, he has not. On the contrary, he has assured us that he still opposes abortion, despite his position on Amendment 48. The fact that Schaffer has been relatively quiete about church-state issues demonstrates only that he knows the independents he needs to win generally don't approve of his views. He still holds those views, and he would still be in a position as U.S. Senator to work to implement them.

Fox 31 Interview on Amendment 59

October 15, 2008

Tonight Fox 31 news broadcast a segment by Deborah Takahara about Amendment 59. (http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7646014&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1) Watch it here.

Then read Diana Hsieh's great (http://www.voteno59.com/) web page explaining in more detail why Amendment 59 is a bad idea.

Udall, Schaffer Offer Dueling Federal Controls

October 15, 2008

It comes as no surprise that Mark Udall is a (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10719919) pragmatic statist. He writes for the Denver Post, "I voted against the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street not because of any ideological opposition to federal intervention, or because of a blind faith in free markets..." We wouldn't want to base any decisions on ideas! Notice that Udall believes that one can only advocate free markets from faith. He blames the crisis on "greed and lack of oversight on Wall Street," rather than on the actual causes: a collection of federal controls that encouraged and even mandated risky lending. The only point about which Udall is certain is that the economy "requires government action." He offers no reasons for this. (Obviously, Udall has not learned the lessons from the bailout that I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/letter-to-mark-udall-regarding-bailout.html) hoped he would.)

So Udall's opponent for the U.S. Senate, Bob Schaffer, is the "free market" alternative, right? Nope. Schaffer is (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10719918) more blunt about the causes of the economic crisis. "For years, liberal politicians have mandated the risky lending practices that brought us to our knees," such as the government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And he rightly points out that the federal response to the federally-caused crisis is to inflate the money supply, which "hurts middle-class Colorado families and the poor the most."

And Schaffer pays lip service to a "a free-flowing marketplace." He suggests that he would cut some taxes and roll back government controls such as the Community Reinvestment Act. But he squishes pretty quickly, invoking "a 21st century regulatory structure for a 21st century marketplace and financial system." Well, what in the hell is that?

Schaffer (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/15/schaffer-makes-his-case/) told the Rocky Mountain News that he wants a "refereed private sector." Refereed by whom? By federal politicians and bureaucrats. Notice that Schaffer never draws a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/palin-lets-biden-disparage-free-market.html) distinction between the government's proper role of protecting individual rights—by upholding property and freedom of contract and by rooting out force and fraud—and government actions that violate individual rights.

Diana Hsieh (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/10/diana-hsiehs-2008-voting.shtml) summarizes, "Bob Schaffer advocates a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/04/bob-schaffer-republican-has-a-thirst-to-be-where/) 'refereed private sector'—i.e. an economy controlled and managed by politicians and bureaucrats. He even supports (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/Sep/14/udall-schaffer-talk-health-care/) antitrust lawsuits against health insurance companies. Despite the vocal claims of his advocates, he is no friend of capitalism."

In many ways, those who claim to support "free markets" but who in fact advocate economic controls are worse than those who, like Udall, openly declare their statist leanings. At least Udall doesn't conflate the "free-flowing marketplace" with federal control of the economy.

Add to that Schaffer's (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/schaffer-on-abortion.html) faith-based politics, and he is hardly an appealing candidate for lovers of liberty.

Does God Want Higher Taxes?

October 16, 2008

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10730844) reports:

Rabbi Joel Schwartzman of Congregation B'nai Chaim in Morrison gathered with faith leaders from across the state in support of Amendment 59.

Called "Embracing the Common Good," the campaign has mobilized more than 2,500 Colorado congregations, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, to vote in favor of the amendment, which focuses on the creation of a savings account for public schools.

"If you're Jewish, you vote for this," Schwartzman said.

Oh, really? I suspect I could come up with a list of quite a few Jewish people who intend to vote against it, and who would take Schwartzman's condescending attitude with offense. His comment is rather like telling all blacks, whites, Hispanics, Catholics, Muslims, etc. that they will "vote for this," whatever "this" is.

While there is a Judeo-Christian impetus toward altruism, which often manifests as support for the welfare state, quite a few religious people don't approve of higher taxes and don't think God demands them. I wonder why Sally Ho, author of the report, didn't talk to some of those people.

But the broader point is that the alleged will of God, however that's interpreted by various groups, should have nothing to do with politics.

At least House Speaker Andrew Romanoff offered a nonsectarian argument for the net tax hike: "We believe budgets are moral documents which must embody the common good and reflect our shared responsibility to each other." Romanoff's view is not tied to any religion (though it is indirectly inspired by Judeo-Christian altruism); it is a bald assertion of leftist collectivism. I do agree that we have a "responsibility to each other:" we have a responsibility to respect each other's rights. Romanoff believes that the majority has the "responsibility" to seize by force the wealth of the minority and redistribute it to others. But legalized theft hardly makes society as a whole better off.

As for me and my house, we advocate individual rights.

Amendment 47 and the "Freedom of Choice"

October 16, 2008

My dad and I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/mark-your-colorado-ballot-for-liberty.html) come out against Amendment 47, the so-called "right to work" measure. (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/10/diana-hsiehs-2008-voting.shtml) So has Diana Hsieh. This has generated some discussion regarding the merits of the proposal, so here I further detail my case against it.

The problem with Amendment 47 is that it interferes with the freedom of contract. That this interferes with the employee's "freedom to choose" is irrelevant. For instance, an employee does not have the "freedom to choose" to gab on the phone with friends while at work, create a painting when the job requires customer service, etc. Beyond the context of individual rights, the "freedom to choose" is either meaningless or in direct violation of individual rights. For example, you do not have the "freedom to choose" not to pay your mortgage and remain in your house. You do not have the "freedom to choose" to walk out of a grocery store without paying for your food. You do not have the "freedom to choose" to unilaterally force an employer to offer a contract that he does not want to offer. At least, within the bounds of individual rights you have no such freedom.

Is it true that, due to federal controls, unions have the ability to force contractual concessions that they would not be able to achieve on a free market in which the individual rights of both employer and employee are fully protected? Yes, that is true. But two wrongs do not make a right. One violation of contract rights does not call for another. The undue power granted to unions by federal legislation should be repealed. The answer is not to impose new contractual restraints by state force.

Now let us (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/2008EnglishVersionforInternet.pdf) take a look at the actual constitutional language that Amendment 47 would impose:

(2) (a) No person shall, as a condition of employment, be required to: (I) Be a member of a labor union; and (II) Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind to a labor union or to any charity or other third party, in lieu of such payments. ... (3) Any person who directly or indirectly violates any provision of this section commits a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine in an amount equivalent to the most stringent misdemeanor classification provided by law.

Whom is the criminal penalty directed toward? The employer. How exactly is threatening employers with criminal sanctions protecting their rights to contract?

An argument against the measure in the Blue Book aptly summarizes another problem: "By defining labor union to include organizations that provide mutual aid or protection, employers may be banned from requiring employees to belong to organizations that promote workplace safety or provide job-related education programs."

Indeed, the language is so broad—"any charity or other third party"—than an employer would not be able to require funding of any civic group as a requirement of employment. Now, I do not think employers should be in the business of requiring civic participation, but I think they have every right to do so, as a matter of contract.

Employers also have the right to create a union shop. Does this interfere with the employee's "freedom of choice?" No; they retain the freedom to work elsewhere. Contracts are a two-way street, and the rights of both parties must be protected, by the principle of individual rights.

Comment:

The Myth of Compulsory Unionism

Adults are often called upon to make important decisions that may have a significant impact on themselves and their families. These decisions are often economic in nature and are not, one would hope, made without careful consideration of their moral consequences. The decisions of moral men and women, who are compelled to choose principle over economic comforts, are sometimes criticized as naïve and self-destructive. Those of us who have been confronted with such quandaries, and went with our principles, are secure in the knowledge that we made the correct choice and can comfortably face ourselves in the mirror each morning.

One of the decisions we make as adults is the type and place of employment we might seek to best provide for our families needs and future. A principled person will not, under any circumstance outside of the very survival of himself or his family, betray those principles and take a job that he or she feels is contrary to those principles. Nor can, or should, any outside force compel them to do so against their will. For this person, it is beyond the pale to perform, or to take employment with a company who will ask them to perform, a task or assignment they find repugnant. When seeking employment, such a person must be vigilant to ensure that they accept no condition of employment that runs counter to their principles.

A somewhat unsettling aspect of modern employment is the host of concessions that a company will ask of a potential employee. While many people are disturbed by the nature of some of those requests, the employer reserves the right, as an act of self-preservation, to seek permission to delve into the most intimate details of the job seekers life and employment history. The principled adult must, at this point in the potential employer/employee relationship, decide if they are willing and able to, among other things: Take a drug test, Take a physical, Take a polygraph test, Take a personality profile examination or undergo psychological testing, Consent to a medical history search, Consent to a background check, including police records, Consent to a credit check of themselves and their spouse.

The applicant, who deems these requirements acceptable will agree to them and, should all go well, be asked to return to the job site for further discussion. The discussion often times leads to another set of conditions that the potential employee must agree to in order to be eligible for employment. These might include: Getting a haircut, Shaving or removal of facial hair, Removal of all jewelry or piercings, The necessity to work a schedule other than the preferred 9 to 5, Monday through Friday, A diminished salary until a probationary period is completed, Required participation in the company health plan, whether needed or desired, Required participation in the company stock purchasing program or 401k, Required payment for the use and cleaning of uniforms, Payment for required tools or vehicles necessary to perform the work.

Voicing unwillingness or reluctance to agree to these terms might be met with a terse "These are the terms and conditions of employment. You must accept each and every one before you can start work." Making the decision that these conditions are acceptable will lead the applicant to their first day of work. Making the decision that they are not acceptable will lead the applicant to the door, seeking employment with a company that does not require the acceptance of employment terms the applicant finds unacceptable.

Suppose the principled job seeker agrees to all the requirements of a particular employer and states that they are ready to go to work. The employer says 'Oh, one more thing... the employees here have a Union. Should you accept employment with us, you would be required to become a member of that Union."

The applicant, who may have negative feelings regarding Union membership, is simply confronted with another decision. As in the previous cases, acceptance of that condition will lead to employment, non-acceptance the door. The applicant, finding the idea of being in a Union repugnant, can state so and seek employment elsewhere. Their moral compass has provided direction through the turbulent waters of this decision and they can continue to look themselves in the mirror each morning, confident in the correctness of that decision.

The claim that an applicant is subject to "compulsory Unionism" by accepting employment at an establishment where the employees have, democratically and under protection of the law, made the choice to form a Union is cynical and is, most often, made by those who would benefit from the dismantling of Unions. It also diminishes the significance of the decision of those employees who exercised their right to form a Union at that workplace and to collectively bargain with their employer. The fact that they did form a Union may explain why the wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment at their place of employment are more attractive than those at others.

The very idea that an adult, who lives by the morals and principles that they carry with them, can be "forced" to join a Union demeans every person who fills out an application. They either have the capacity to make reasoned decisions on, and take responsibility for, the many choices they are confronted with in the search for employment or they do not.
A responsible and principled person who does not want to be in a Union should, when applying for a job, make the question "Is there a Union here?" their first. If the answer is "Yes", they should move on and seek employment with a company that will not present them with a condition of employment that they find contrary to their principles.

A worker who finds themselves confronted with a situation where their co-workers have initiated a Union election is neither defenseless nor "doomed" to become a union member. Their options include urging their co-workers to vote no in the election or urging them to vote down any contract that includes "closed shop" language. Should they be unsuccessful in those attempts they have the right, after one year, to initiate a de-certification of the Union. The employee has the same right to initiate a de-certification election that their co-workers had to initiate a certification election.

Should the anti-union employee be unsuccessful in their attempts at the first three options then, as a person of integrity and principle, they can exercise their right to not be a union member by finding a different job. Not fair, you say? Well, the fact is that thousands of people quit their jobs every day. They quit for a variety of reasons; the boss is not fair or is mean to them, they don't get paid what they are worth, the work is too dangerous or dirty for the pay given etc… The best way to generalize all the reasons workers leave their jobs is to say that the conditions of employment have become intolerable. The pay and benefits are no longer sufficiently motivating to continue doing the work and the employee self-selects non-employment. They are not bound, in a democracy, by any legal requirement to stay at a job they find unpalatable and can, at any point, self-select and move to other employment.

We have, in this country, found that the best way to make decisions that impact a group is to rely on the democratic process to determine the will of that group. The wishes of the majority will prevail, unless that wish is counter to some inalienable right guaranteed by law. It was decided by our representatives in Congress, vis-à-vis the National Labor Relations Act of 193X, that the ability to collectively bargain was worthy of federal protection and that the principles of democracy should determine whether or not employees want to exercise that right. This process is guided by the NLRA and is monitored by an employee of the NLRB to ensure the process is indeed democratic and immune from conditions that would negate the true desires of the group. Each employee in the group has equal opportunity to express their desire and to communicate that desire to other members of the group. That individual does not, however, have the right to enjoy the benefits of remaining in the group without assuming the responsibilities assigned to each member of that group.

There is a legal term called "coming to the nuisance" that can be applied to the concept of "forced unionism". The term restricts an individual's right to make claims against an entity for conditions that existed prior to the individual being negatively impacted by those conditions. For example, if someone buys a home along the flight path of an established airport, they can make no claim against the airport for the noise that existed before, or at the time when, they bought the home.

The reason they would have no claim is that a) the airport was there before the individual was b) the individual should have known that the house was on the flight pattern, had they used due diligence in investigating the conditions and c) they knew about the conditions and purchased the home anyway, thereby accepting the conditions that existed prior to their arrival. This principle protects existing enterprises from being sued or having complaints filed against it by people who, knowingly and willingly, come to the nuisance and then attempt to have the nuisance removed, thereby causing the enterprise harm or the inability to continue operation.

If someone applies for a job at a company that has an existing agreement between the employer and employees that states "all employees who fall within the bargaining unit, as determined by the NLRB, will be required to be a member of the union", what right does the individual have to keep themselves outside of that agreement? The "nuisance" of union membership existed before they applied, they knew, or should have known, that there was a condition of employment requiring union membership before they accepted employment and they had the opportunity to avoid the "nuisance" by declining acceptance of that condition.

An employee who is confronted with a union election at their worksite has equal opportunity to participate in that process and to communicate their desires to their co-workers. Should their co-workers disagree, and vote for a union, the opportunity exists to keep a "closed shop" agreement from being passed. Finally, they have the opportunity to decline the groups' requirement of union membership by avoiding the "nuisance" and removing themselves from the group. The individual has no right to remain in a group without meeting the requirements of that group.

Right-to-Work legislation attempts to restrict the employer and employees from negotiating contract language that would require all employees to support the organization that the group has determined will advance their common interests. Such an agreement does no harm to the employer and, under Colorado law, requires an additional polling of the group to determine whether or not a majority of employees desires such language. This illogical restriction on an agreement between two legally recognized entities, the employer and the employees' organization, is not, as its advocates claim, intended to safeguard some non-existent right to avoid "compulsory unionism". It is, rather, a cynical attempt to diminish the actual right of employees to collectively bargain with their employer. Those that seek to weaken that right are attempting to fool voters into aiding and abetting their goal by disingenuously couching legislation in language designed to manipulate the good intentions of the people of Colorado.

Amendment 48: Burton's Equivocation

October 21, 2008

At least Kristi Burton and I agree on something: the tag line of "it simply goes to far" is a terrible critique of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. Beyond that, Burton simply refuses to honestly discuss the implications of Amendment 48 or to answer her serious critics.

Burton (http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20081018/EDITS/810179925/1023%26parentprofile%3D1065%26title%3DKristi%20Burton:%20Amendment%2048:%20Can%20truth%20go%20too%20far%3F) writes for the October 18 Vail Daily:

It has been interesting to watch the strategy of the "no on 48" campaign. They know if they attempt to contend human life doesn't begin at conception they're arguing with virtually every geneticist and embryology textbook available. So instead, they take issue with the dictionary. They concede that human life begins at conception, but claim "personhood" doesn't begin until some later, yet to be determined, date. They never come out and say it, but they assume it's OK to "terminate" a developing human until he or she reaches that undefined point of "personhood." If they simply pick up any dictionary and look up "person," they will find the definition: "A human being." That's what it's meant for the last several centuries. "Person" and "human being" have always been the same thing, but the no on 48 folks plan to change all that. And, they do it as though no one should even question their totally illogical and false premise. They simply assume it's true and expect you to do the same.

But Diana Hsieh and I have (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) directly addressed Burton's arguments. Burton cannot have failed to become aware of our paper, as Diana and I have promoted it widely in newspaper columns, letters, online comments to news articles, and the internet. For Burton to completely ignore our arguments reveals her intellectual dishonesty.

Notice Burton's progression: she claims that a fertilized egg is "human life," then she jumps to "person," which she equates with "human being." Burton's argument is incredibly rationalistic, so silly on its face that it obviously disguises her real motive for supporting the measure: she believes the Bible forbids abortion and that God has declared a fertilized egg to be a person, with all the same legal rights as you and me.

Obviously a fertilized egg is "human life." It is alive, and it contains human DNA. Every cell in our bodies is "human life" for the same reason. Burton is quite wrong in claiming that "human life" begins at conception; both the sperm cell and unfertilized egg are also human and alive. What Burton steadfastly refuses to consider are the very real biological differences between a fertilized egg and a born baby. Diana and I discuss these differences at length, and in the process we clearly define the beginning of personhood.

For the answer to Burton's claims, see pages 10-13 of our paper. First Diana and I point out Burton's equivocation:

[T]he advocates of Amendment 48 depend on an equivocation on "human being" to make their case. A fertilized egg is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA. It is also a "being," in the sense that it is an entity. That's also true of a gallbladder: it is human and it is an entity. Yet that doesn't make your gallbladder a human person with the right to life. Similarly, the fact that an embryo is biologically a human entity is not grounds for claiming that it's a human person with a right to life. Calling a fertilized egg a "human being" is word-play intended to obscure the vast biological differences between a fertilized egg traveling down a woman's fallopian tube and a born infant sleeping in a crib. It is intended to obscure the fact that anti-abortion crusaders base their views on scripture and authority, not science.

Here is the most relevant passage on personhood (sans citations):

[S]o long as the fetus remains within the woman, it is wholly dependent on her for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is wholly contained within and dependent on her for its survival. So if the woman dies, the fetus will die too unless delivered quickly. The same is true if the fetus's life-line to her body is disrupted, such as when the umbilical cord forms a tight knot. A fetus cannot act independently to sustain its life, not even on the basic biological level possible to a day-old infant. It is thoroughly dependent on the woman in which it lives.

That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. Although still very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food, and moves on his own. He interacts with other people as a whole and distinct creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. He can leave his mother, either temporarily or permanently, to be cared for by someone else. He has a life of his own that must be protected as a matter of right, just the same as every other person. That's why the killing of a just-born infant is immoral—and properly forbidden by law. However, while just a fetus within the woman, the only person with rights is the woman.

Recently Diana (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/10/individual-and-rights.shtml) posted some comments by William Stoddard along the same lines:

Aside from the question of self-awareness, the other critical point is that the fetus does not meet a necessary condition for having individual rights: It is not an individual.

Individualism works, ethically, because we can draw a line of separation between individuals. It's possible to benefit one individual without doing so at the expense of another; individual rights provide a legal structure that makes such results not merely possible but reliable. We are not forced to trade off benefits to one individual against injuries to another. And what makes collectivism evil is that it does force such tradeoffs on us.

But if ever there was a case of collectivism in human existence, it's in the relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child. The fetus cannot be neutral with respect to the woman carrying it; its very existence alters her hormones, her entire physiology, and her emotional state. Even if the woman wants to be pregnant, it's all too possible, despite the achievements of medicine, for situations to arise where a benefit to the fetus entails harm to the mother, or vice versa, and where it's necessary to decide which benefit is more important. Trying to sort this out by applying the concept of individual rights just doesn't work.

And there's only one decision maker there: the pregnant woman. The fetus lacks sufficient rationality, purposefulness, and self-awareness to make choices. The pregnant woman has to decide where her priorities are. Some pregnant women will choose to take terrifying risks for the chance to have a child, and that's their right; they can say "Price no object" if they want. Others will abort, for whatever reason. Either way, they pay the price of their choices. Having someone else, who doesn't have to pay that price, make the decision for them, or tell them what they can and can't do, cannot be expected to produce better decisions.

Burton wishes us to forget the actual language of Amendment 48. It does not merely say, "We think a fertilized egg is human life" or even a person. Rather, it grants a fertilized egg the same rights to life, liberty, property, and due process of law that born babies have. Thus, it would have radical implications for the law. Burton pretends that the measure does not mean what it says. In her Vail Daily piece, she writes:

The rest of the arguments of the no on 48 campaign are designed to convince you the amendment will interfere with women's health care and cause women who have miscarriages to be carted off to jail. These scare tactics aren't true. Dottie Lamm and Linda Campbell go on at length about the possible affects of the amendment. They keep using the term, "it could" do this or that in their attempt to frighten voters.

The amendment merely extends protection to both mother and baby. It recognizes that women also are persons. I'm a woman and will probably marry and have children someday. Would I help create a law intended to unduly endanger myself?

Here we move on from Burton's Equivocation to Burton's Bifurcation. As I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/amendment-48-sponsor-hedges-on.html) pointed out at length, Burton simultaneously wants to claim that Amendment 48 would lay the basis for banning abortion, but that it would not lead to other nasty implications. Yet, if a fertilized egg is a person, with all the same legal rights as a born infant, and if such a definition is legally enforced, then the logical implications are these: all abortion must be banned, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks that are not immediately life-threatening to the woman; all forms of birth control that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus must be banned; all fertility treatments that may result in the destruction of fertilized eggs must be banned; and all abortions and intentional miscarriages must be criminally prosecuted. Burton keeps repeating that these implications are "scare tactics" that "aren't true." Yet they are logical implications of Amendment 48, and Burton has never offered a single argument otherwise.

Burton does let slip a concession, however: notice that Amendment 48 would not "unduly endanger" her life. What does that mean? It means that, if doctors believe that failure to abort necessarily would kill the woman, and they don't fear criminal prosecution if they abort, then Amendment 48 likely would permit the abortion. However, as I've pointed out, rarely are risks so clear cut. Amendment 48 would endanger the health and lives of some women; whether that endangerment is "undue" would depend on how the legislature and courts decided the criminality of abortion. There can be no doubt that, in some cases, Amendment 48 would result in the deaths of women.

While Amendment 48 certainly is no laughing matter, I did get a chuckle over Burton's projection:

Resorting to repetitive use of a meaningless phrase is a propaganda tactic commonly employed when there is no substance to an argument. Opponents of 48 are hoping for what psychologists call a "conditioned response." You step into the voting booth and when you see Amendment 48 that little phrase automatically jumps into your head and you vote no.

Changing "opponents" to "advocates" and "no" to "yes," that pretty much summarizes Burton's case for Amendment 48.

Bashing McCain (Because He Deserves It)

October 21, 2008

John McCain's final hope to become president might have been in his response to W. Bush's (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21701) "creeping fascism" a.k.a. the bailout. McCain interrupted his campaign and went back to Washington, D.C.—to do what? To rubber-stamp Bush's bailout as laden with pork by the senate. McCain proved with unmistakable finality that he advocates centralized government controls, not economic liberty. Meanwhile, with his selection of Sarah Palin, McCain demonstrated his commitment to government controls in the personal sphere.

Radly Balko (with whom I disagree on various matters) (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441025,00.html) summarizes many of the reasons why the Republicans deserve to lose because of their massive escalation of federal control over the economy. Near the top of the list: "we now get to watch as the party that's supposed to be 'free market' nationalizes huge chunks of the economy's financial sector."

And Christopher Buckley, in (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/) endorsing Obama, wrote that "Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. ... What on earth can [McCain] have been thinking?" While Buckley doesn't detail his problems with Palin, he notes, "On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I'm libertarian," meaning he disfavors the proposed political controls of the religious right, the group that Palin was assigned to energize.

If you care about economic liberty, you cannot vote for John McCain. If you care about personal liberty on matters like abortion, you cannot vote for John McCain. If you care about free speech, you certainly cannot vote for John McCain. If you like nationalistic economic intervention and religion-based law, McCain's your man. Unfortunately for McCain, Obama seems to scare the hell out of fewer voters, and that's a major reason why Obama seems poised to win. Unfortunately for the rest of us, Obama might prove at least as destructive of our rights and of our vulnerable nation.

Comment: Aside from some republicans in congress and the president, more democrats pushed for the bailout, and democrats were completely responsible for the economic collapse. Obama doesn't scare me any less. If you're for confiscation of wealth, loss of free speech, altruistic foreign policy, an possibly weaker defense against terrorism and fundamentalist Islam, Obama is your man.

Burton Backtracks on Amendment 48

October 22, 2008

As I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/amendment-48-burtons-equivocation.html) pointed out, Kristi Burton likes to pretend that Amendment 48 wouldn't have the nasty legal implications that her opponents claim.

But on October 14, Burton even backed away from her opposition to abortion, (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=2163) telling a crowd, "We're not saying outlaw abortion, do this, do that. It's simply a definition."

Apparently, Burton believes that Amendment 48 has a shot only if she lies about her intentions. The advocates of the measure most certainly are "saying outlaw abortion." Burton herself has (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) said elsewhere that she sees Amendment 48 as an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

What should we make of Burton's claim that Amendment 48 is "simply a definition?" As I wrote in an e-mail in reply to that question, "Amendment 48 would amend the Colorado constitution. Constitutional provisions are laws; they are laws of higher order than legislative statutes. If a statute contradicts a constitutional provision, courts will look to the constitution as the higher law. Many laws contain definitions, and the definitions are critical for how the law is interpreted and applied. So it's a mistake to think of Amendment 48 as merely a definition; it would add a definition to the state's constitution, thereby becoming part of the fundamental law that guides the passage and application of legislative statutes."

Of course, as Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) point out in our paper, whether and to what extent Amendment 48 is implemented depends on federal as well as state court rulings. As Ed Quillen (http://www.denverpost.com/quillen/ci_10770206) points out, neither the legislature nor the courts always follow existing constitutional language. However, in our paper Diana and I explain why that's hardly comforting:

The legislature and courts in Colorado might be strongly tempted to pretend that Amendment 48 doesn't mean what it plainly says in order to avoid its absurd implications. Such a course of legislative and judicial winking might save Colorado from the worst effects of the measure, but it would do so by undermining the basic principle of rule of law so essential to a free society.

Alternately, the Colorado legislature could try to rewrite the myriad statutes mentioning "person" or "persons" to exclude fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. However, anti-abortion lawyers could effectively challenge such legislative changes based on the constitutional language of Amendment 48. The measure would be subject to interpretation by Colorado courts, but those courts would be legally bound by the constitution, including Amendment 48.

If Amendment 48 passes, its exact effects would depend greatly on the decisions of future legislators and judges. However, we can be sure that the advocates of Amendment 48 will work doggedly to force the Colorado government to fully implement and enforce the measure.

As Burton demonstrates, "half the truth is a great lie." True, Amendment 48 would not automatically be enforced. However, the advocates of Amendment 48 have put it forward precisely because they want to outlaw abortion and in every other way legally protect a fertilized egg. For Burton to pretend otherwise proves only that she knows she cannot win an honest debate.

Balko Misfires with 'Private' Social Security Accounts

October 22, 2008

Radly Balko (http://reason.com/news/show/129350.html) argues that the government should implement "private" Social Security accounts, despite the recent financial difficulties. The subtitle of the article (as it appears at Reason) reads, "Why the market meltdown doesn't negate the case for privatizing Social Security." The meltdown itself does not negate that case; it was negated (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/socseclinks.html) long ago, and the meltdown only reinforces the negation.

The first problem is that Balko calls them "private" accounts. They are no such thing. Under the Bush/Cato plan, people are forced to contribute to these accounts, and, as Balko hints, the accounts are controlled by federal politicians and bureaucrats. The plan wells from fascism, not the free market. It is perfectly in line with Bush's partial nationalization of the financial sector with his bailout and buyouts. Federally directed investment in the stock market via Social Security would automatically expand federal control over the market, and it would invite ever more controls to "protect" people's money. (I feel a blunt assessment is in order here, despite the fact that I'm usually a fan of Balko's work.)

The Bush/Cato plan relies on an accounting fraud to gain initial plausibility. The key problem is that money directed toward the accounts would in no way reduce the existing liability for Social Security, until those with the accounts started to retire. The result is that those with accounts would end up paying the same amount into Social Security, directly or indirectly, in addition to the money they'd be forced to spend on the accounts.

To get a better sense of this, consider the simple fact that the accounts are inessential. If people could spend less directly on Social Security, they could simply be allowed to keep that money, rather than forced to invest it in federally-controlled accounts, and their Social Security payoff could be reduced commensurately. But, as noted, that would do nothing to address Social Security shortfalls in the interim, so that money would have to be raised somehow, whether through direct taxes or more deficit spending. Alternately, Social Security benefits could be reduced, but if so they could be reduced without creating the federally-controlled accounts.

There is certainly a transition problem with Social Security. Many people in and near retirement rely on that money for their basic needs. It would be unjust as well as politically infeasible to cut off those benefits. As I've argued, the best way to phase out the system with the least amount of pain for all involved would be to slowly raise the retirement age. This would leave the benefits of those already on Social Security unchanged, and it would give those far from retirement many years to adjust their plans.

The central political problem of our day is that the failure of federal controls in the financial markets is being blamed on nonexistent free markets. By pretending that federally mandated and controlled accounts are somehow "private," Balko et al contribute to the charade.

Comment by Allen: Good points. I can imagine how over time in such a scenario the government would manage to create some sort of bubble similar to how the Fannie/Freddie ownership society stuff --- while not the entire cause --- was arguably the difference between having a huge bubble burst and simply a few companies losing some money on investments. I also have a hard time seeing these accounts being implemented in a way that allows much choice for the individual. Corporate 401Ks tend to be mediocre in with their investment choices. Can you imagine the crud spit out by a bureaucracy large enough to handle 300+ million accounts?

Beauprez Reminds Voters of Schaffer's Faith-Based Politics

October 23, 2008

Bob Beauprez, former congressman and failed candidate for governor, has reminded voters that U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer opposes abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. Yet Beauprez's own faith-based politics (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado.html) cost him big in 2006, when he earned only 40 percent of the votes. While Beauprez made a number of campaign mistakes, his own commitment to faith-based politics, as well as an even more pronounced commitment by his running mate, alienated many moderate Republicans and independents. Will Beauprez bring the same magic touch to Schaffer's race?

Mike Riley (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10788140) reviews Beauprez's efforts for the Denver Post:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez is blanketing the state with recorded calls that take aim at Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall... The calls are targeted at Catholic voters...

Voters who receive the robo-calls hear Beauprez's voice talking about the "five non-negotiables" of Catholic doctrine—opposition to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning.

He tells listeners that Udall is on the wrong side of each, and he lauds Udall's opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer.

It's not clear that the calls will help Schaffer even among Catholics. One recent poll (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/mccains.html) found that 51 percent of Catholics believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." More broadly, Beauprez reminds voters that the Republican Party in Colorado is all about imposing sectarian dogma by law.

What's repulsive is that Beauprez calls his faith-based policies "values issues." What is valuable is a government that respects individual rights. One that violates individual rights by enforcing religious law destroys values.

Colorado Benefits from Electoral System

October 23, 2008

The Democrats held their convention in Colorado this year. McCain, Obama, Palin, and Biden have campaigned extensively throughout the state. Thus, this is a perfect time for an "I told you so" regarding the Democratic plan to split Colorado's electoral votes back in 2004. Thankfully, the voters rejected the idiotic scheme.

I denounced the measure, Amendment 36, in a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/09/no36.html) first and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/11/sox36.html) second article. I summarized, "The proposal hopes to divide Colorado's electoral votes for president according to the popular vote. Currently, state law specifies that all electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the most popular votes."

Had the measure passed, this year Colorado would have been mostly a fly-over state. Instead, we're at the center of the action.

20/20 Reveals Free Speech Violations

October 23, 2008

20/20 ran a powerful (http://beckyland.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/2020-segment/) segment on campaign censorship laws. Becky Clark, a Coloradan who was sued for putting up yard signs and getting politically active in her community, is featured in the segment. The upshot is that the laws benefit insiders and raise hurdles for true grass-roots activism. These laws are unjust, and they must be repealed.

Update: I've since learned that her full name is Becky Clark Cornwell. Earlier this year, she (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/Apr/13/speakout-opposition-to-annexation-riles/) wrote a Speakout for the Rocky Mountain News about her ordeal.

ABC News has also (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=6049954&page=1) published John Stossel's review of campaign finance laws.

Eric Daniels Defends Free Speech

October 25, 2008

Linn Armstrong and I are coming out with a column on free speech this Monday; see Grand Junction's Free Press. We quote Eric Daniels, Research Assistant Professor at the (http://business.clemson.edu/bbtcenter/cci/) Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. Unfortunately, we had space only for a few of Daniels's comments. Thankfully, he has agreed to let me reproduce the entire interview here.

My purpose in contacting Daniels was not to cover familiar ground, but to elicit responses about some of the most difficult implications of free speech. Until I thought more carefully about the matter on October 23, talked with another friend about it, and contacted Daniels, I wasn't sure about my position on the matters of campaign-finance disclosure and campaigns by foreigners. Now I am sure. I am for freedom, not controls.

Daniels's answers follow the questions in bold:

Briefly, why do you think free speech has come under attack by both right and left in recent decades?

Fundamentally, the reason free speech is under attack by both is because both fail to understand the nature of individual rights. The majority opinion in politics today holds that rights are gifts from the government that allow individuals to do some things as long as they do not upset certain vested interests. In the case of free speech, politicians believe that you should
be allowed to say what you want as long as it does not, for example, offend religious or ethnic groups or as long as what you say is not backed by too much money, or as long as what you say meets some vague notion of community standards. But that is not free speech. Free speech means the right (not privilege) of individuals to express their opinions without government
censorship of any kind, whether by hindering speech through regulation or through restricting it through prosecutions after the fact.

Should the law require disclosure of campaign-related expenses? I'm leaning no. People have a right to speak anonymously. There's no clear way to distinguish between advocacy and education. And, the voters can demand disclosure with their votes. Do you agree with this? Explain.

I do not think the law should require public disclosure of campaign-related financing. If politicians wish to disclose the source of their financing to the public, they are free to do so. Likewise, if they choose to keep their donors' identities to themselves, they should also be free to do so. The electorate can indeed decide through voting whether to support candidates who do or do not disclose their financing. Contributing money to a political candidate or to supporters or opponents of a ballot measure should properly be a matter between the private parties themselves. It does not matter how much a person gives or how much air time he buys, voters always remain free to take the message for which he has paid in the appropriate context. No one
forces the voters to believe or discredit any given message, they do so of their own will.

Should the law prohibit campaign contributions from foreign entities and people? For instance (Diana Hsieh raised this example), if the U.S. were going impose a tariff on British goods, should British citizens be able to campaign against it in the U.S.?

Giving money to a political campaign is an issue of individual right—that is, the donor who has earned his wealth has a right to give it to whatever candidate he chooses, and the candidate has a right to accept money from anyone he chooses. Foreign citizens or political action committees have just as much right to speak as do Americans. Again, if there is some belief on the
part of voters that foreign influence is unduly affecting some candidate, the voters retain the right to demand that the candidate disclose the source of his funding or face losing their votes.

Is there anything else we should know about free speech in the modern era?

Even though much of the recent controversy about free speech is tied to speech about political issues, it is important to remember that we have the freedom of speech not just because it facilitates a robust discussion of public policy
(which is the unfortunate modern interpretation), but because it is a right of each individual to express his ideas in the manner he chooses and to reach whatever size an audience his rightly-earned wealth will allow.

Palin's Prayer Warriors

October 27, 2008

The October 23 Denver Daily News published a story about Sarah Palin's views on God and the election. I found a (http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/the-amazing-palindobson-interv.html) rough transcript of her interview with James Dobson, on which the news story was based.

Dobson said he and others have been praying for "God's intervention"; that "God's perfect will will be done in November the fourth." I.e., they think God has the ability to sway the election in favor of McCain-Palin, and they are asking God to do so. (The mechanism by which God would supposedly do this is unclear; apparently he would "touch people's hearts" or some such—possess them—in the voting booths.)

Palin replied:

Well, it is that intercession that is so needed and so greatly appreciated. And I can feel it too, Dr. Dobson. I can feel the power or prayer and that strength is provided through our prayer warriors across this nation and I so appreciate it. [Dobson says, " Well, you hear that everywhere you do, don't you?] I do, and that is what allows us to continue to be inspired and strengthened. And it's just a great reminder also when we hear along the rope lines that people are interceding for us and praying for us; it's our reminder to do the same, to put this all in God's hands, to seek his perfect will for this nation and to, of course, seek his wisdom and guidance in putting this nation back on the right track.

If McCain is elected, Palin will be a heartbeat away from the most powerful political office in the world. If she becomes president, she will think that God placed her in that position and that her duty is to impose God's "perfect will" on the nation.

Meanwhile, as Myrhaf (http://myrhaf.blogspot.com/2008/10/goodbye-gop.html) reviews, Rush Limbaugh has called on those who reject faith-based politics to leave the Republican Party. Read the (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102408/content/01125111.guest.html) transcript.

There can be no doubt—because leading Republicans have gone out of their way to remind us—that the Republican Party is the party of the religious right. Palin's comments have prompted me to again think seriously about voting for Obama (rather than nobody).

If Palin does become president, several things might mitigate her damage. She would (probably) face a Democratic Congress, which would (probably) block the worst possible Supreme Court nominees. She is inept, so she might flub the job so badly that she'd be enormously unpopular. And, regardless of her performance, the American people might revolt against her overt and overriding faith-based politics. I don't think I need to outline the worst-case scenario.

Time to Speak Out for Free Speech

October 27, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081027/OPINION/810269962/1062&parentprofile=1062&title=Time%20to%20speak%20out%20for%20free%20speech) was published on October 27, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press. Links have been added here. See also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/eric-daniels-defends-free-speech.html) "Eric Daniels Defends Free Speech."

Time to speak out for free speech

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Free speech is under assault in America by state and federal governments, despite constitutional protections.

Both major presidential candidates are enemies of free speech. In 2002, John McCain rode the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act) McCain-Feingold campaign censorship law through Congress. Among other things, the law prohibited select groups from running certain political ads before elections, though the Supreme Court struck down some of the worst parts of the law. Barack Obama wants federal controls on media ownership, his spokesperson (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html) told Broadcasting & Cable.

Some conservatives want more censorship over pornography. Many on the left call for censorship of the radio by forcing broadcasters to air certain views; supporters laughably call their scheme the "Fairness Doctrine."

Here in Colorado, various activists have faced legal threats for daring to exercise their rights of free speech. For example, (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html) in 2006 Becky Clark Cornwell put up yard signs and protested a plan to annex her community of Parker North into the city of Parker in Douglas County.

A supporter of annexation filed a legal complaint against Cornwell and others, claiming they had engaged in "illegal activities" under Colorado's campaign censorship laws.

Lisa Knepper of the Institute for Justice (IJ), a civil rights group that (http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1250&Itemid=165) defended Cornwell and her neighbors, said that, while the U.S. District Court ruled the group could not be penalized, the court "failed to change the law to prevent such abuses of campaign finance law in the future, so we're appealing to the 10th Circuit."

ABC's 20/20 (http://beckyland.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/2020-segment/) featured Cornwell in an October 17 story about the campaign finance laws. Cornwell said "the lawsuit was used in an effort to shut us up about the annexation, to scare us enough and clobber us with these laws so that we wouldn't talk about it any more."

20/20 paid people to try to fill out Colorado's campaign forms. Nobody did so successfully. One subject said, "A regular citizen cannot read this legalese." Another said, "I'd rather just not get involved in the political process if I have to go through the nonsense that I had to go through today."

Steve Simpson, the IJ lawyer defending the Parker North residents, said he's also defending the Independence Institute, which was sued over its criticisms of Referenda C and D in 2005. Simpson is awaiting a decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals. He said "it would be impossible" for the Independence Institute, a think tank, to comply with the reporting requirements as an issue committee, because the group gets funds for general purposes and spends them on a wide variety of issues.

Even though we've condemned Amendment 48, which would absurdly define a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution, we were displeased to see that a fellow named John Erhardt (http://www.squarestate.net/diary/6961/amendment-48-campaign-eggmendment-fined-for-campaign-finance-violations) sued the Amendment 48 campaign for petty violations of the campaign censorship laws. Erhardt gloats on his blog, "So, while the fine of $150 won't break their campaign, they did have to spin their wheels to defend this."

Diana Hsieh, co-author of the paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us, said the advocates of 48 "should be free to advocate their views—not bogged down in opportunistic legal action by opponents... I want opponents of Amendment 48 to be spending their time arguing against the substance and philosophy of it, not playing campaign finance dirty tricks."

Finally, Douglas Bruce has taken flak in the media (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10788528) [one and (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/23/bruce-uses-nonprofit-funds-to-mail-fliers/) two] for mailing a flyer against Amendment 59 and Referendum O through a nonprofit group, Active Citizens Together, without filing the legal paperwork that some think applies.

It's past time to rethink the validity of the campaign censorship laws, along with all the other restrictions on free speech. We checked in with Eric Daniels of the (http://business.clemson.edu/bbtcenter/cci/) Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, and he offered a refreshingly consistent defense of our rights.

Daniels said, "Free speech means the right (not privilege) of individuals to express their opinions without government censorship of any kind, whether by hindering speech through regulation or through restricting it through prosecutions after the fact."

We don't even like requirements to report contributions. People have a right to speak anonymously. There's no clear way to distinguish between advocacy and education. And, the voters can demand disclosure with their votes.

Daniels agrees: "If politicians wish to disclose the source of their financing to the public, they are free to do so... The electorate can indeed decide through voting whether to support candidates who do or do not disclose their financing. Contributing money to a political candidate or to supporters or opponents of a ballot measure should properly be a matter between the private parties themselves."

Government should not abridge "the freedom of speech, or of the press." Politicians have gotten away with doing just that for far too long. If we wish to retain and restore our other liberties, we must above all fight for our rights of free speech.

Vote for Amendment 48 or Go to Hell

October 29, 2008

In a (http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2008/oct/27/lynne_herring_vote_yes_amend_48/) letter to the Craig Daily Press, Lynne Herring offers the following reason for voting for Republicans and Amendment 48:

Please vote yes on 48. I believe, as a Christian, that when I stand before God and He asks me if I did everything in my power to respect and protect life, but I chose not to vote or I vote for the Democratic Party and Obama, who strongly support abortion, that God will hold me just as guilty.

If abortion is murder, and God will hold people guilty of abortion for voting to keep it legal, then apparently the outcome is to burn in hell for all eternity. If there is some other meaning for being held "just as guilty," I can't guess what it is. Will God say, "Naughty, naughty; now walk your naughty self through Heaven's gates"? If so, that's not much of a deterrent. I'm not really up on people's differing ideas of purgatory, so maybe that would come into play.

Herring makes a peculiar claim: "Pregnancies after rape and incest are very rare, and no one would condemn any woman for getting an abortion because of violence done to her." Wait just a minute. Amendment 48 declares a fertilized egg to be a person. If so, then aborting an embryo that resulted from rape is murder. And Colorado Right to Life and other organizations believe precisely that.

Herring had better think about her position a little more carefully. If she fails to "condemn any woman for getting an abortion because of violence done to her," then Herring is by her own standards endorsing murder, and God will hold her "just as guilty" as the women who get an abortion. Herring is dangerously close to the flames of hell, by her own reasoning.

But of course Herring's views are nonsense through and through. For reasons to oppose Amendment 48, see the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/a48.shtml) web page devoted to the issue by the Coalition for Secular Government.

Comment by Michael Kranitz: Ari, I just found several of your articles on religion vs. reason (abortion) and find your work to be enlightened. I have spent the past three years voraciously reading books from Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" to Hitchen's "God is NOT Great" and have a real passion for doing something to help bring bronze-aged notions into the glare of modern light. You are doing that and I appreciate it. Keep up the great work!

Westword Interview on Values of Harry Potter

October 29, 2008

Westword featured an online (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2008/10/in_values_of_harry_potter_ari.php) interview October 28 in which I discuss Harry Potter and some of the ideas from my book, (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles.

I wanted to expand one point here. In the interview, I say:

Obviously, the idea of heroes fighting for values in some sense has to be part of any compelling fiction. For example, you see some similarities with Tolkien's works, but what strikes me about the Harry Potter series is the richness of the characters and their commitment to their personal values. ... [T]here is more self-motivation, for example, than for Frodo, Tolkein's hero, who to a great extent is pushed in this battle by the gift of this ring and the wizard Gandalf directing him to take this quest. He is not fighting for his core life values, as they are in Harry Potter.

Frodo is fighting to protect his world, the Shire, no doubt. And Harry, like Frodo, is placed into a grand conflict to a large degree by forces beyond his control (for Voldemort targeted him as a child). Nevertheless, the thrust of my point remains true. Frodo's fight for his own values is much more in the background, while Harry's fight for values is front and center. Even though Harry is targeted by Voldemort and encouraged by Dumbledore, he consciously makes a series of choices to join the battle, explicitly on the grounds that he must do so to defend his values, the people and way of life that matter to him. From Tolkien, an even better comparison is with Bilbo from The Hobbit. Bilbo constantly wishes to return home, rather than complete the journey, and he doesn't much care about the outcome. And he is quite shoved out the door by Gandalf; he doesn't pursue the journey because he thinks it is important to achieve the things that really matter to him. So my point is not that values are absent in Tolkien, but rather that personal values play a much more pronounced role in Rowling.

I mentioned a couple other points about independence to Joel Warner (who conducted the interview) that didn't make the final cut. First, with respect to the formal education at Hogwarts, I pointed out that Harry independently chose to pursue his education, and Hogwarts allows much greater expression of independence relative to typical American schools. Second, regarding political implications, I pointed out that those who take the themes of independence and free will seriously are more likely to advocate personal responsibility in the political system.

If readers of the interview have additional questions for me, please submit them in the comments and I'll do my best to answer them.

Amendment 48: Reply to the Gazette

October 30, 2008

An October 29 (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/abortion_42579___article.html/rights_fetus.html) editorial by the Colorado Springs Gazette urges voters to "get real," yet in endorsing Amendment 48 the editorial ignores all the realities about the measure and its flaws. Here I reply to the editorial point by point (all indented text is from the editorial).

The moment the egg is fertilized... it becomes a microscopic person with a unique genetic code. Similarly, the acorn becomes an oak tree, in seedling stage, when it germinates. Basic science tells us a sprouted acorn is not a lifeless mass; nor is a zygote.

A fertilized egg has a unique genetic code, true, and it is not a "lifeless mass," for it is definitely alive (as are the unfertilized egg and the sperm cell). But where does the Gazette get the notion that a fertilized egg is a "person," with all the same rights as a newborn? The editorial offers no answer.

Let us review what Amendment 48 would do. It would add a new section to Colorado's constitution stating, "As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." Those other articles explicitly bestow the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law.

Amendment 48 does not say that a fertilized egg is alive, nor that it has human DNA, nor that it is a potential person. It says that a fertilized egg is a person, with all the legal rights of a born infant. And that is a key point that the Gazette steadfastly ignores.

The comparison to an oak tree is interesting though peripheral. I've never heard a single person call a sprouted acorn an "oak tree," and the two have obvious differences. Regardless, the comparison goes only so far, because a germinated acorn is not contained within and completely dependent upon the body of an oak tree, as a zygote is relative to a woman. That fact matters when it comes to individual rights, yet it is another crucial point the Gazette ignores.

Amendment 48... would establish a rational, scientific, reasonable and legal definition of when human life begins.

This is wrong on two counts. First, Amendment 48 does not attempt to define when life begins; it attempts to define when personhood begins. Second, life does not begin at conception; it precedes conception.

Voting "yes" on Amendment 48 is a vote for honesty, not a decision to outlaw contraception, abortion, cloning or fetal stem cell research. ... The highest court in the land told all 50 states they must protect the rights of mothers to kill fetuses that haven't progressed into the third trimester of pregnancy.

However, the stated goal of the advocates of Amendment 48 is to use the measure in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Amendment 48 were enforced—which would depend on rolling back federal provisions—then it would outlaw any act harmful to a fertilized egg, except perhaps abortion to save the woman's life.

But few Americans would support the needless torture of a fetus. Few would support the killing of a preborn child by a drunken driver or an attacker, against the mother's will. Some of America's most pro-choice citizens would object to gratuitous experimentation, abuse or killing of fetuses. A definition of unborn humans as "persons" would aid society in protecting some rights of the unborn, should society choose to do so.

The pregnant woman has rights, and thus anyone who harms her fetus is subject to criminal prosecution. It is simply not possible to harm a fetus without harming the woman in the process, and the woman as the carrier of the fetus has the right to protect it. Amendment 48 is not about banning gratuitous injury to a fetus; it is about granting a fetus full legal rights. (Anyway preventing gratuitous injury does not rest on the definition of personhood; for example, rightly or wrongly the law prevents gratuitous injury to dogs.)

Opponents of the measure have raised alarming concerns. They claim that any woman who takes the morning-after pill, which can abort a fertilized egg, could be convicted of first-degree murder should Amendment 48 pass. They say the law would outlaw abortion, even resulting in criminal investigations each time a woman suffers a natural miscarriage. They don't happen to mention that Colorado is forbidden by federal law to outlaw abortion.

Diana Hsieh and I certainly do discuss the interplay between federal and state law in (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) our paper; see pages 2-3. We also point out that Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, wants to use the measure to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I have heard nobody claim that "natural miscarriages" would "each" be subject to criminal investigation. Rather, Hsieh and I have correctly claimed that any miscarriage suspected of being intentional could be subject to criminal prosecution, if Amendment 48 were enforced.

[Opponents] say state law forbids the killing of a "person," so under 48 abortion is doomed. Yet Colorado has the death penalty, and there's no question that death row inmates are "persons."

Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre.

Abortion is legal in Colorado because state law says it's legal. ...

Yet Amendment 48 is a constitutional provision, and as such it would trump any statute.

Perhaps there was a time of primitive science when intelligent adults didn't know when life begins.

Again, this point is irrelevant, and the claim that life begins at conception is obviously false.

The debate regarding legal rights of a fetus should no longer center on the myth that our science is fuzzy. That's a dishonest discussion. Instead, it should focus on what fetal rights a society shall or shall not defend, with full acknowledgement that a fetus is human from the moment of conception.

The fact that a fetus is human does not establish that it is a person. My kidney is human, for example. As Hsieh and I point out, advocates of Amendment 48 routinely rely on an equivocation on the term "human," jumping from the meaning of having human DNA to personhood without argument or evidence.

If abortion laws depend on a misconception that a fetus isn't human, they will not last. If they're based in a societal decision that unborn humans have limited rights, then abortion laws are safe.

Perhaps the Gazette could offer a single example of somebody who claims that a fetus is something other than human, in the sense of having human DNA.

Amendment 48 would merely bring the legal definition of "person" in line with the fact that a fertilized egg is a person in the earliest stage of life.

You notice what argument the Gazette uses to establish this point: none. Yet the Gazette manages to leave between the lines the only "reason" yet offered for thinking that a fertilized egg is a person: religious faith.

Evie Hudak's Squandered Opportunity

October 30, 2008

Libby Szabo's supporters must think she has a good shot at winning her state senate race (Colorado District 19) against Evie Hudak, because they're dumping a ton of money on Hudak.

In general, the mailers I've seen for Szabo are highly effective. They portray her as a fiscal conservative and her opponent as a reckless tax-and-spender. One recent flyer "Paid for and authorized by Coloradans for Change" claims that Hudak "supports a massive $3.8 billion property tax increase," showing that "Evie Hudak has no problem taking money from hardworking Coloradans. Evie Hudak in the State Senate means she can tax us more and waste our money to bloat the size of government even more." Even though the flyer doesn't mention the details, the mere fact that a Republican group is taking on higher taxes is significant, given the bloated-government policies of W. Bush.

Another flyer from the same group repeats the charge: "The Associated Press investigated Evie Hudak and found she spent $11,316 of taxpayer money as a member of the State Board of Education—in just one year. Actual receipts show her spending at taxpayer expense included 4 nights at the luxurious Keystone Resort Lodge and Spa, chauffered limo rides in Washington, DC, and expensive meals at 5-star restaurants."

That's effective, negative advertising.

Meanwhile, the flyers sent on behalf of Hudak portray her as a gleeful supporter of the welfare state, including corporate welfare for politically-correct energy boondoggles. Each flyer I get for Hudak reminds me of why I despise Democrats and why I'll be disgusted to vote for her.

And, inexplicably, the attacks on Szabo have tapered off. While I got (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/how-republican-libby-szabo-lost-my-vote.html) one flyer weeks ago correctly claiming that Szabo wants to "ban all abortions" and end stem-cell research, I've seen no effective follow-up attack.

Yet the fact is that Szabo endorsed (http://www.seculargovernment.us/a48.shtml) Amendment 48, which if implemented would force women to carry pregnancies to term even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks to the woman (excepting immediately fatal ones). It would subject women and their parters and doctors to severe criminal penalties for abortions or induced miscarriages. It would ban the birth-control pill and other forms of birth control that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. And it would virtually ban fertility treatments.

The attack on Hudak for the misspent $11,316 hits its mark. But that's nothing compared to a politician who wants to put my wife in jail for taking the birth-control pill or getting an abortion for health reasons. (On the phone Szabo denied that Amendment 48 would ban the pill, despite the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) evidence that that the pill can kill a fertilized egg and that many opponents of abortion oppose the pill for that reason. The fact that Szabo refuses to contemplate the logical implications of her endorsements is hardly consolation.) Yet, as far as I've seen, Hudak's supporters have not made Szabo's support of Amendment 48 a campaign issue. This is despite the fact that the measure is losing in (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/27/personhood-amendment-failing-2-1-margin-poll-shows/) the polls 68 to 27 percent.

Hudak had her chance to beat Szabo, and she totally blew it. Her only hope now is that the government employees (particularly the teachers' unions) put her over the top, and that she benefits from strong up-ticket Democratic support.

If Szabo wins, at least she might be a good vote on economic issues—though most Republicans aren't—and with the Democrats controlling state government she'll have little opportunity to implement her horrifying faith-based politics.

My Kind of Republican

October 31, 2008

Ryan Frazier favors Amendment 47, the so-called "right to work" measure, as Joel Warner writes up in an excellent (http://www.westword.com/2008-10-16/news/as-the-face-of-amendment-47-ryan-frazier-s-job-is-on-the-line/1) article for Westword. On this issue Frazier is wrong, for reasons I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/amendment-47-and-freedom-of-choice.html) discussed, but his is a forgivable sin.

(The fact that a union thug (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10831516) called Frazier a "House N---" who bends "over for the white man" makes me sorry that I have to vote with the unions on this one. But I have to do the right thing even if the unions oppose 47 for the wrong reasons.)

From what I can tell based on the Westword article, Frazier is otherwise moving toward Team Liberty.

Frazier (http://www.westword.com/2008-10-16/news/as-the-face-of-amendment-47-ryan-frazier-s-job-is-on-the-line/2) told Warner, "I chose the Republican Party because of the principles the party was founded on. This was the party of freedom. This was the party that sought the abolition of slavery. The principles of the party are relatively simple: Keep government to the lowest practical level, fiscal responsibility, strength in the free enterprise system, and protection of the rights of every individual. Man, I identify with those."

Warner also writes this (http://www.westword.com/2008-10-16/news/as-the-face-of-amendment-47-ryan-frazier-s-job-is-on-the-line/4) extraordinary segment:

In 2006, [Frazier] stood alongside Democratic Denver mayor John Hickenlooper in public support of Referendum I, which would have allowed domestic partnerships... He's also ambivalent when it comes to pro-life [sic] issues: "I am not a fan of abortion, but I struggle with whether it is the appropriate role of the government to place itself there."

... [H]e isn't the only Republican who seems to be eschewing the state party's long-held cultural-conservative playbook. Other GOP thirty-somethings, like state senator Josh Penry and state representatives Frank McNulty and Cory Gardner, are shying away from the culture wars and sticking with fiscally conservative stances. Even prominent state Republicans like party elder Hank Brown have come out against Amendment 48 on this November's ballot, which would define a fertilized human egg as a person and therefore, many believe, outlaw abortion.

It could be indicative of a fundamental shift within the statewide GOP apparatus. After Republicans saw that their fixation on unborn babies and marriage licenses got them nowhere except out of office, they've opted for a reboot, a return to the small-government, personal-freedom ideals of old.

"I think that's an astute and correct observation," says Steve Schuck, a prominent Colorado Springs Republican and onetime contender for Colorado governor. "I am pleased that the Republican Party is moving in that direction, higher regard given to policy issues than social issues. Partly, it's a failure of them to be effective. There are so many examples of us not being successful that can be attributed to a preoccupation with social issues."

Of course, there's a big difference between being right on social issues and hiding one's wrong views about them. As far as I can tell, practically all Republicans who aren't completely in step with the religious right are doing the latter (which is why, for instance, Bob Schaffer has come off looking two-faced).

Still, Warner's notes on Frazier give me some hope that there are a few Republicans who believe in individual rights and a government limited to protecting them.

The 'New Energy Economy' Euphemism

November 1, 2008

U.S. Senate hopeful Mark "Udall has track record advancing new energy economy," a Speakout headline (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/01/welch-udall-has-track-record-advancing-new-energy-/) asserts in the Rocky Mountain News.

A more precise way of putting it is that Udall supports corporate welfare and central planning in energy.

I don't demand that advocates of corporate welfare call it that, but they could at least admit to favoring "corporate subsidies."

But people seem to want to pretend that if we call it the "new energy economy" it's something other than old-fashioned socialism.

Comment: The problem with the "new energy economy" is that the claim that it will create new jobs is a complete lie. Jobs are created when efficiencies are introduced into a system. This is often compared to the "computer boom of the 90's." The difference is that computers introduced new efficiencies into the systym. Accountants replaced bookkeepers with computers; architects replaced draftsmen with computers; banks replaced tellers with ATM's. Because of the efficiencies, the cost of these services declined and the entire economy improved. No one has explained how the economy can improve by switching to more expensive less efficient forms of energy—especially in this global economy where competing nations will be using the less-expensive forms. This plan can only be accomplished 2 ways; by subsidizing inefficient energy or outlawing efficient energy. Either way burdens Americans unjustly.

Barbarians Murder Girl in Somalia

November 3, 2008

What century is this, again? The Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445962,00.html) reports that Islamic militants murdered a 13-year-old girl by stoning her to death in a packed stadium. Her crime? She was raped by three men, and thus she committed adultery.

While this girl's death is particularly gruesome, plenty more share in her horror. The AP notes, "A quarter of Somali children die before age 5..."

Amendment 48: Laugesen Replies

November 3, 2008

Recently I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/amendment-48-reply-to-gazette.html) replied to an editorial by Colorado Spring's Gazette that endorsed Amendment 48. Wayne Laugesen, the editorial page editor of the paper, took the time to write a detailed reply, which he graciously allowed me to reproduce below. I will respond in a (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/11/amendment-48-and-personhood-reply-to.html) subsequent post. -Ari Armstrong

Wayne Laugesen: re: "Nobody argues that any fetus is guilty of felony murder, so the comparison is bizarre."

The point is this: You seem concerned that if an egg is lawfully recognized as a "person," nobody will be allowed to kill it without landing in prison. A death row inmate is indisputably a "person." So clearly, we make lawful decisions to kill some "persons." We may lawfully kill a "person" convicted of first degree murder because the "person" is burdensome to society. We may lawfully kill a "person" who threatens our safety after breaking into our home. We may also lawfully kill a person whose life depends upon a mother's womb, because that person isn't independent and may be burdensome to the mother and society. Some may not like this fact of settled law, but it is a fact. The point is that defining a fertilized egg or a mature fetus as a "person" does not preclude someone from lawfully killing that person. If that were the case, we would not be allowed to kill in self defense or to kill murder convicts, simply because they are "persons" by any definition. Ending abortion may well be the intent of 48's authors, but their intent wouldn't make it so.

All major, high ranking definitions I can find of "person" and "human" are interchangeable.

Yes, your liver is a human element, but it does not contain all of the components of a complete person. It will never have its own brain, or its own eyes or ears, etc., and it will never be capable of reading and writing and paying taxes. The same cannot be said for a zygote, which is the beginning stage of the life of a "person," whether the zygote lives a day or continues to mature for 100 years. The life begins at that moment of conception, and it ends at the moment of death. There is not a magical event somewhere in between, convenient as that event might be. Scientifically, a human life is an exact timeline with one beginning and one end. Any theories to the contrary involve an imaginary event at a convenient point on the timeline, and that sounds like religion. Bestowing rights at an arbitrary point on the timeline of life is perfectly logical; bestowing "life" or "personhood," by contrast, involves superstition. This issue is not really about "person" or "non-person," the issue is "full rights," "no rights," or "limited rights" for some persons but not for all persons. Society does not guarantee all "persons" equal outcomes in life. Society does not protect all "persons" equally.

I think we would agree that a six-month-old fetus is a human with a brain, a mouth, a nose, arms, legs, etc. and etc. Correct? Yet society, knowing those facts, has decided to protect a woman's right to kill that "person" or "human" or "fetus" or whatever one chooses to call him or her. This has little to do with science, and much to do with the legitimate human practice of allocating rights. If we pretend it's based in a meaningful scientific distinction, we're entertaining a convenient fantasy. In truth, it's based in legitimate practical considerations and the allocation of rights.

That being the case, it's not important to pretend that a fertilized egg is something other than the first stage in the life of a "human," and therefore a "person." I don't see why it's a problem to call a person a person, and then decide which persons have rights worth protecting and at what point on the timeline of life those rights deserve a societal defense. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religious leaders and believers can make up the rules as they go. Therefore, any religion is free to define "life" however it chooses, or to decide who has rights and when those rights are endowed. Religions that wish to abuse women, for example, are free to define only men as "persons" and then try to impose their definitions through theocratic rule of law. But science is objective, and scientifically life begins at conception. Our laws, in a constitutional Republic as opposed a theocracy, should use scientifically objective definitions.

You agree with me that a fertilized egg is living and human. And I think we basically agree on most major points in this discussion. The main difference between our positions is the fact that you are using the word "person" to describe a being with a full slate of human rights that society must accept, while maintaining that a human with limited rights is something less than a "person." That requires you, therefore, to argue that a death row inmate is not a "person," and a predator shot by a victim is not a "person." After all, these humans do not have the same rights to live as other humans do.

I, by contrast, am using the word "person" to describe a "human" at any stage of development, acknowledging that society does not treat all "persons" equally, it cannot, it never has and it never will. Again, scientifically speaking a sprouting acorn is biologically an oak. That does not mean it's due all the protection of a giant shade tree. Likewise, I understand that society will never protect a day-old zygote the way it protects a member of Congress. If we look at this issue through a lens of reproductive politics and sociopolitical practicality, Amendment 48 is a menace. If we look at it through a lens of incorporating truthful, logical, scientific, objective definitions into law, it seems like a reasonable proposition. And I know you don't believe that it negates Roe v. Wade. I'm equally certain that you understand how Roe v. Wade has absolutely no role in Colorado's abortion laws, which exceed the minimal requirements of Roe v. Wade. Of course, all of this is completely academic as Amendment 48 has never had the slightest chance of passing because it's not politically viable here. It is, however, a good topic for discovery and discussion. I found your paper on this issue thorough and well written.—Wayne

Amendment 48 and Personhood: Reply to Laugesen

November 3, 2008

Here I extend a debate over Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. I also want also to summarize the major issues, so hopefully the piece will be of interest even to those who haven't followed that debate so far.

A few days ago the Colorado Springs Gazette published an (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/abortion_42579___article.html/rights_fetus.html) editorial endorsing Amendment 48. I wrote a (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/amendment-48-reply-to-gazette.html) reply, which Wayne Laugesen of the Gazette (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/11/amendment-48-laugesen-replies.html) answered. Even though Laugesen is wrong on this issue (though I often agree with him on other matters), it has been a pleasure to debate the matter with someone who takes objections seriously and thinks though the implications of the arguments.

The Language and Intention of Amendment 48

Again, Amendment 48 would not merely define a fertilized egg as "human," "life," or even a "person." Rather, it would grant a fertilized egg the same legal rights as a born infant, the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. Furthermore, the explicit goal of the sponsors of Amendment 48 is to outlaw all abortion, except when the woman certainly would otherwise die. That's bad enough, but the measure logically also prohibits certain forms of birth control, medical research, and fertility treatments, as Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) review.

Laugesen answers that federal and state law would continue to keep abortion legal, and that the political climate is not right for such far-reaching prohibitions. However, the advocates of the measure have promised a long-term fight to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as state laws allowing abortion, and Amendment 48 would grant them a powerful weapon in that fight.

If Laugesen doesn't think Amendment 48 could eventually ban abortion, I'm at a loss to understand why he favors the measure. It's a bit odd to endorse a measure that one thinks will have consequences dramatically different than what the sponsors of the measure anticipate. As I argued previously, the problems that Laugesen seeks to address aren't even real problems, and if they were they could be addressed with delimited statutes.

The Conditions of Personhood

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of personhood? Obviously a person is alive and human (though if we were to discover intelligent life elsewhere presumably "person" would become the broader concept). But many other things are alive and human, in the sense of containing human DNA, including my kidney and every cell in my body. So those conditions are necessary but not sufficient.

A person must have the genetic code capable of creating or sustaining an independent existence. Notice that it's not true that each person has distinct DNA (and I think I've misstated this point myself), for identical twins start out as the same fertilized egg and then split apart from each other. So unique DNA is not even a necessary condition of personhood. But DNA capable of forming and sustaining a human body is necessary.

Part of the difficulty of thinking about a fertilized egg is that it is in some respects unique. It shares some similarities with with other human cells and organs, yet it has the distinctive capacity to develop into a born infant and then an adult human (in the right conditions). It is this distinctiveness that draws some to equate fertilization with personhood. Yet that is a mistake. The only options are not "living human never-person" and "living human person." A fertilized egg is a third sort of thing: it is living and human with the potential for turning into a person. But a potential is not an actual. It is ludicrous to equate a zygote, a mass of undifferentiated cells with no organs, with a born infant, and declare that both should be legally indistinguishable.

Laugesen claims that only superstition can mark the onset of personhood, if we reject the point of fertilization. This ignores the obvious, blindingly bright line: birth. Something dramatic happens at birth. No longer is the fetus completely contained within the body of the woman, completely dependent on her at the biological level for oxygen and sustenance. At birth, the fetus becomes a separate baby, able to breath with his own lungs, digest food with his own organs, and, notably, leave his mother. A born infant is still highly dependent in the sense that somebody must provide him with nutrition, warmth, etc., yet a born infant is radically independent relative to a fetus in that the born infant is a physically separate biological entity.

Personhood implies legal rights, as Amendment 48 recognizes. Yet, to have legal rights, individual rights, one must be an individual in the basic physical sense. A fetus has no such independent existence. And that matters very much. For instance, if a woman needs cancer treatment that might harm the fetus, even though the woman might not otherwise die before delivery, the woman has every right to get that treatment, even if it kills the fetus.

Laugesen is correct that the development of a fertilized egg to a late-stage fetus is a continual and gradual one, without any momentary lines of demarcation. The brain develops slowly; it does not just pop instantly into the fetus's head. However, that does not imply that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a late-stage fetus. The two are radically different. One is just a few cells, the other has all the organs that an adult person has.

It is this distinction that draws Leonard Peikoff, for instance, to a (http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion.htm) discussion that centers on early-term abortions:

The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.

We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body.

This points to two additional factors that are necessary for personhood: developed human organs and physical separateness (i.e., birth). Consider, for instance, that if a woman's body expels a living fertilized egg, we do not consider that she has given "birth" to a "child." We don't hold a funeral complete with a miniature coffin. (As Hsieh and I point out, most fertilized eggs are naturally flushed out of a woman's body; we do not consider this to be some sort of horrific tragedy, as we would if all fertilized eggs truly were people.)

Together, those conditions of personhood—life, human DNA, developed organs, and physical separateness—are sufficient for personhood. If something doesn't have those four characteristics, it's not a person.

Peikoff answers those who would equate a potential person with an actual one:

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

The entire case for granting personhood status to fertilized eggs rests on the fallacy of equating a potential with an actual.

The Meaning of "Human"

Laugesen claims, as I've heard before (and as Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48 has also claimed), that the meaning of "person" and "human" are indistinguishable. That's clearly wrong. For instance, we say that a kidney is a human organ, but we don't claim that a kidney is a person. As Hsieh and I have argued, the advocates of Amendment 48 routinely equivocate on the term "human," jumping from "containing human DNA" to personhood for no good reason. One finds this dual meaning of "human" whether one turns to the Oxford English Dictionary or (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human) Dictionary.com.

A Zygote Versus a Felon

Laugesen argues that, as we can restrict the life and liberty of a murderous felon, so we can restrict the life and liberty of a zygotic "person." However, the comparison falls apart because a zygote is not a person. If a zygote were a person, it would be quite unjust to treat a zygote as though it were guilty of first-degree murder. A murderer has willfully removed himself from civil society. Notably, to be criminally punished one must be found guilty according to "due process of law"—a right granted to fertilized eggs by Amendment 48.

A fertilized egg is not a person. Amendment 48 is wrong in its assumptions and frightening in its implications.

DeVotchKa's Faithful

November 3, 2008

This Halloween I saw what must be among the greatest shows of the evening worldwide: (http://devotchka.net/) DeVotchKa's performance. (The crowd's costuming was a performance in itself.) The production was not nearly as extravagant as it was last year, as two nights at the Boulder Theater replaced one large performance in Denver last year. But this is not a band that needs props, given Nick Urata's sonorous energy, Tom Hagerman's virtuoso musicianship (he is a symphony-caliber violinist), Shawn King's intricate and precise percussion, and Jeanie Schroder's steady bass and tuba lines. (Actually it's a sousaphone.)

I don't know who does the heavy writing—I suppose Urata and Hagerman—but this band has created some very fine music. I recall going to see another local band some years ago and seeing DeVotchKa in the lineup by accident; it's the only group of the evening that I remember. Then came "How It Ends" and the film "Little Miss Sunshine," for which the band provided the music. And this local band has made it big, perhaps surprising given its eccentricity.

I wasn't sure I'd like the band's new album quite as well, based on my iTunes sampling of "A Mad and Faithful Telling." But I picked up a copy at the concert (for a mere $10—modern technology is extraordinary), and so far I've listened to it a half dozen times or so. It is a great album. I don't recognize singles as rousing as the older songs "Death By Blonde" or "The Enemy Guns"—there seems to be less raucous guitar—but the album is marked by sophisticated and heartfelt music. I like DeVotchKa's first album, and the other three studios are favorites of my collection.

On stage, Urata said he wished the audience could see the world through his eyes. At least we can hear the world as he hears it.

New Life, Same Old Subjectivism

November 4, 2008

Salon has published an (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/03/newlifechurch/) article about the politics of New Life Church. This is the paragraph that struck me:

"I'm not going to tell you who to vote for," [Senior Pastor Brady Boyd] said. "You pray, fast and vote for whoever God tells you represents your values. We have a biblical worldview here, so vote for candidates who are going to do that—who are going to uphold the Biblical worldview we all have." Mostly, Boyd seemed worried about Amendment 48. "If you're not interested in any other issue on the ballot please, please, go to the polls on Tuesday—if you have not voted yet—and vote yes for Amendment 48," he said, probably violating the terms of the church's tax-exempt status. "It's the right thing to do."

These people literally believe that a supernatural being is "telling" them how to vote. But presumably they don't hear an actual voice: "Hello, Brady, this is God. You need to vote for Candidate X this year. My will be done. Over." So what, then, is the mechanism by which God imparts his election wisdom? People just feel that God is guiding them in some particular way. That's it. A feeling. This is subjectivism masquerading as divine intervention.

But Pastor Boyd already knows that God will tell his flock to vote for candidates who share a "Biblical worldview." What is that? Presumably, it includes such beliefs that a fertilized egg is a person, that homosexuality is sinful and should be legally discouraged, that certain types of expression should be censored, and that certain types of peaceful activities should be criminally punished. Increasingly, the "Biblican worldview" seems for many to imply that the government should forcibly redistribute wealth, including for religious welfare and education, and centrally plan the economy such as to "protect" God's creation.

Boyd seems even more certain that God wants Coloradans to outlaw abortion (despite the weak Biblical support for such a position, which is in any case properly irrelevant). But (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Amendment 48 is not the "right thing to do;" it would, if enforced, unleash horrific injustice in this state. But that is a natural consequence of the moral subjectivism implicit in religion.

Voting Day

November 4, 2008

My wife and I finished watching HBO's series on John Adams last night. It's a remarkable film about a remarkable man. It renewed my sense of wonder at America's founding.

My only criticism is that it's too journalistic; for instance, I didn't need to see Adams sick in bed for quite so long, nor did I need to hear the buzzing sounds of flies for every outdoor scene. But I do generally appreciate the richness of detail and authenticity of the piece.

One thing that struck me about the film is that it shows Adams as president walking around the streets, accompanied only by a friend. Today that would be impossible. Today's president has so much power, and is perceived by the public as such a godlike figure, that the president is no longer truly a man of the people.

I gritted my teeth as Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Even these heroes had their flaws. But then Jefferson undid this error of Adams, and the two men eventually renewed their friendship.

This morning my wife and I voted. I did not vote for any candidate for president. None of the candidates deserves my vote, and none deserves to hold the same position as Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. Down ballot I voted for the lesser of evils, for candidates who for the most part care little for the liberty and rights for which the revolutionaries fought.

And yet I feel this is a celebratory day. Despite the economic problems, and the prospect that the government might further worsen the economy and erode our rights in the coming years, I feel a sense of hope.

For these words still live:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Comment by Justin: I sometimes admire the Founding, then I realize they replaces one government with another. Not very revolutionary. And I'm also reminded of Spooner's remark that either the Constitution has authorized the type of government we have had or has been powerless to prevent it, either way, it's unfit to exist.

Comment by Ari: Had the founders not replaced "one government with another," the region would have fallen under the rule of some other foreign power, some set of local tyrants, or worse. To ignore the profound achievements of the Founders, particularly given their place in history, is unjust.

FreeColorado.com on CBS News 4

November 4, 2008

Tonight CBS News 4 is hosting a webcast (see the (http://cbs4denver.com/video/?id=48589) preview) featuring local bloggers.

I'm scheduled to appear from around 8:15 to 9:00 p.m. The entire webcast lasts from 7-10.

See the (http://cbs4denver.com/) station's web page tonight for details.

This is a huge election year, and there are plenty of important things to discuss. Please join me. Apparently there's some way to submit questions, so viewers can help guide the discussion.

Election Blues and Reviews I: Created Equal

November 5, 2008

It was an extraordinary day. And the election shaped up fairly well from where I'm sitting, given the possible outcomes. True, advocates of liberty and individual rights will have plenty of work to do over the coming years. But the cultural climate will, I think, be particularly receptive to a debate over fundamental issues. And that is good, for when given a fair and rational hearing liberty tends to emerge triumphant.

President Barack Obama

Never has the nation so rejoiced to sing the blues. I am very proud of our nation. Just a century and a half ago our nation continued its evil practice of racial slavery, the great sin of the nation's founding. Until about a half century ago the nation continued the viciously unjust legal discrimination against blacks.

And today the United States has elected the first black man (of "melting pot" heritage) as president. This proves that ideas matter, that good can win out over evil. Today in America, for the most part, one is not judged by the color of one's skin but by one's character.

And so we have completed the circle:

(http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

(http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm) Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm) I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." ... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

(http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/obamas_speech_as_prepared.php) If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ... Ann Nixon Cooper... was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that 'We Shall Overcome'. Yes we can.

True, Obama does not consistently live up to the ideals of liberty. His stated goal is to expand government force over various aspects of the economy. Yet we owe ourselves a time of magnanimity, for Obama's election finally lifts a great burden from the heart of America. It is the spirit of liberty that made his election possible, and the same spirit will, I believe, ultimately overcome Obama's own shortcomings. Yes, we can.

My election coverage will continue in Part II, "Religious Right Loses."

Comment: I don't see the race issue the same way you do. Racism helped Obama and his victory is *not* a victory for individualism in race relations. Read this from Shelby Steele: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steele5-2008nov05,0,6553798.story

Election Blues and Reviews II: Religious Right Loses

November 5, 2008

See also (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-i-created-equal/) Part I: "Created Equal."

The Big Loser: The Religious Right

Liberty won another victory in that the faith-based politics of the religious right suffered defeat. I will repeat what I said on the CBS 4 webcast last night: Democrats in Colorado have not won their races; Republicans have lost theirs. (And if Democrats forget that, they will find their majority, both at the national and state level, short lived.) By hitching their party to the religious right, Republicans have driven themselves to overwhelming losses. I'll start at the top of the ballot and work down.

President: Palin Alienated Nonsectarians

As I've (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/with-palin-mccain-ignores-colorado-warning/) pointed out, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin energized the evangelical vote at the cost of alienating independents and nonsectarian Republicans. McCain selected Palin for one overriding reason: her credentials on banning abortion are unassailable. As a result, McCain selected a running mate utterly unprepared to serve as president of the nation. McCain earned the vote of (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102211.html) James Dobson, and he lost the votes of countless others turned off by Palin's faith-based politics and inexperience.

Notably, the Interior West split over the president. Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada went for Obama, while Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana went for McCain. The Interior West (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/) has 44 electoral votes, and they went 19 to Obama, 25 to McCain. This reveals the problem for the Interior West: we had to pick between a candidate who wants more government in our bedroom and one who wants more government in our pocketbook. Generally, the Interior West leans toward liberty—which explains the paradox of Colorado's election results (which I'll review in a subsequent part). Both Obama and McCain are enemies of liberty on multiple fronts, so figuring out the lesser of evils was a difficult task (and one that I could not ultimately accomplish).

U.S. Senate: Udall Endorsed Separation of Church and State

It came as no surprise that Mark Udall beat Bob Schaffer; Udall maintained a consistent lead. Udall won because he convinced Colorado that he'll legislate from the center, while Schaffer will not. As I've (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado-republicans/) noted, Udall wrote the most eloquent defense of the separation of church and state I've seen from any living politician. His (http://ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and-state/) full remarks are worth reviewing. It is that statement, above all, with which Udall earned my vote, despite my profound disagreements with him on economic matters.

A big part of Schaffer's problem is that he was hypocritical on the issue of abortion, thereby alienating both the religious right and the secular free marketers. Consider, for instance, what Schaffer's campaign manager recently (http://www.newsweek.com/id/166730) told Newsweek about Amendment 48 and its sponsor:

"I do greatly respect Kristi Burton and you have to admire her accomplishments," says Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager. "But there is disagreement over whether this is the right thing to do at this time." The state Republican Party will remain neutral.

Well, the state Republican Party did not remain neutral when it passed a resolution to overturn Roe v. Wade at its state convention. And many of its candidates did not stay neutral; they endorsed 48. Besides, neutrality on Amendment 48 is hardly adequate. Now that the Republican Party has firmly and steadfastly proven its loyalty to the religious right, and expressly cast out the free market secularists, it's going to take a lot more than neutrality on a stinker of a ballot measure. It's going to take candidates explicitly and seriously committed to the separation of church and state.

U.S. House: Markey Upsets Musgrave

The big upset of the night was the (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/us-house/) defeat of Marilyn Musgrave by challenger Betsy Markey. Back in August, I was (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/08/meet-colorados-congressional-delegation/) ready to declare Musgrave the winner. Yet, as I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado-republicans/) noted, Musgrave's faith-based politics played a huge role in that race. And it was repudiated.

I live in District 2, where Boulder too is located, where Jared Polis (who happens to be gay) soundly beat challenger Scott Starin. I considered voting for Starin just to protest Polis's grand central plans, but I found on his (http://www.starinforcongress.com/issues/) web page the abortion-banning euphemism about "Respecting the Sanctity of life." The fact that he didn't even have the guts to detail his views on the matter also turned me off.

Of Colorado's seven congressional districts, the Democrats now own five. The two Republicans, Mike Coffman and Doug Lamborn, (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado-republicans/) signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, demonstrating that faith-based politics is not everywhere in the state a loser. But those seats were never in question. Neither was Musgrave's seat, so I thought; on the whole the GOP's faith-based strategy has cost them huge.

State Legislature: Hudak Beats Szabo

I live in State Senate District 19, in which Republican Libby Szabo battled Evie Hudak. As I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/how-republican-libby-szabo-lost-my-vote/) noted, Szabo wanted to outlaw abortion and pass Amendment 48. Nevertheless, I suspected that Szabo would win (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/evie-hudaks-squandered-opportunity/) because her supporters unleashed powerful attacks on Hudak, while Hudak's supporters did not take advantage of Szabo's endorsement of Amendment 48.

The (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/state-senate/) outcome: Hudak eked out a slim victory.

On Monday, I received a letter from Focus on the Family Action complaining that rich guy Tim Gill spent millions electing "those favoring the homosexual agenda." And—bum bum bum—Gill has also funded Hudak! I think that's the sky falling. Apparently this didn't scare voters too badly. Nor is it any surprise that Gill spent his money to beat Republicans given the anti-gay vitriol coming from the religious right. A winning political strategy is not to tell successful rich homosexuals that they're corrupting the youth, headed for hell, and undeserving of equal rights. The Republicans richly deserved every penny that Gill spent to defeat them. Plus, as (http://www.ryansager.com/blog/) Ryan Sager points out, younger voters are much more accepting of homosexuals, and this year they were energized by the Democrats.

So Hudak did not just beat Szabo and her abortion-banning agenda; she beat Focus on the Family.

In my state house district, 29, Democrat Debbie Benefield (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/state-house/) crushed challenger Mary Arnold. This outcome was not a surprise.

On Monday, I wrote Arnold the following note:

Dear Ms. Arnold,

Tomorrow I will vote for your opponent because you (http://coloradorighttolife.blogspot.com/2008/10/beware-mary-arnold.html) desire to "pass legislation that would severely restrict abortions."

While I appreciate the fact that you also oppose Amendment 48, that is not enough. If Republicans want my vote, they must endorse the separation of church and state and oppose faith-based measures such as bans or "severe restrictions" on abortions. As much as it pains me to vote for statist Democrats, I deem them the lesser threat to my liberties.

Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life

Amendment 48 (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/amendment/) lost with preliminary results of 72 to 27 percent.

This is the measure that I spent most of my time trying to defeat. Diana Hsieh and I wrote the paper, (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," and I also wrote a lot about it elsewhere.

The timing of Amendment 48 could not have been worse for Republicans, for it kept in voters' minds the simple fact that Republicans have sold their souls to the religious right. The measure caused Schaffer especially a great deal of grief. And I'm glad of that, because it drew out this issue with finality.

However, while the measure was crushed according to the usual political calculus, the simple fact is that 27 percent of the state voted for the faith-based proposition that a fertilized egg is a person. The religious right is not going away. Its leaders do not care about immediate political success; they care about imposing God's alleged will on earth.

And the well-funded opponents of Amendment 48 may have done lasting harm in claiming the measure "simply goes too far." Many on the religious right will be perfectly happy to run a measure that goes slightly less far.

Still, the resounding defeat of Amendment 48, along with the defeat of various faith-based candidates, shows that the religious right is, at this time and in this region, in retreat. And that is the best news of the election.

Comment by Paul: I find such one-issue arguments hard to accept. The Republicans were defeated because they failed to distinguish themselves from the Democrats on the economy: spend, spend, and more spend. The Republicans jumped on the anti-industrial revolution bandwagon: environmentalism. The Republicans failed to support property rights: no significant outcry against imminent domain. The Republicans cry of "drill, baby, drill" amounted to no legislation allowing for the development of oil or nuclear fuels. The Republicans have an on-going, never-ending war in progress, reminiscent of the Vietnam War. I could go on. I do not see a demonstration that the religious issue was the cause of the Republican loss.

Comment by Ari: I was not positing faith-based politics as the sole reason the Republicans lost, as you'd know if you'd read my other commentary on the election. It was an important reason, though.

Comment by Sylvia Bokor: I agree with Mr. Armstrong's analysis of the Republican's losses. His statement that "Democrats in Colorado have not won their races; Republicans have lost theirs." This is true across the nation. The Religious Right was slapped down. Americans see the danger of trying to insert religion into politics.

Comment: Here's belated thanks (I feel like I've been taking time off since Tuesday!) for everyone's hard advocacy work leading up to the election. I'm sure it made a difference getting the proper message out there. In the case of Amendment 48, the public needed to know with crystal clarity what was at stake, and you did that. Thank you.

Election Blues and Reviews III: Tax Hikes Lose

November 5, 2008

See also Part I, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-i-created.html) "Created Equal," and Part II, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) Religious Right Loses."

Something extraordinary happened in Colorado: at the same time voters elected Democrats throughout most of the state, they also rejected several tax hikes on the state ballot. So Democrats would do well not to interpret the election results as a mandate for big-government, tax-and-spend, anti-liberty, regressive "progressivism." This election was fundamentally a defeat of the Republicans, not a victory for the left's agenda. (For example, I voted for several Democrats and not a single Republican this year, yet I hardly endorse the Democrats' corporate welfare, tax hikes, and central planning.)

If national Democrats want to stay in power, they would do well to follow the lead of Colorado Democrats, and run a moderate agenda, pay off their special interests as little as politically feasible, and refrain from pissing off the nation's honorable gun owners.

The big news of of the night is that Amendment 59, the cleverly written net tax hike superficially for education, lost by a healthy margin. (See all of the (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/amendment/) ballot results.) To review quickly, 59 would have forever wiped out the tax refunds of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), thus raising net taxes forever. The measure was brilliantly conceived in that it didn't raise the rate at which taxes are collected, it allocated the money to education, and it created a "savings account." Yet, as opponents pointed out, it would merely have freed up existing money for other purposes.

Obviously the measure went down to defeat because of the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/am-59-would-impose-new-forever-net-tax.html) article I wrote against it back in September. Kidding. Diana Hsieh put up a great (http://www.voteno59.com/) web page against the measure. Penn Pfiffner and the Independence Institute put out some material criticizing the measure. Douglas Bruce, known as the father of TABOR, mailed out a flyer attacking the measure. And various bloggers joined the chorus singing no.

But I have to say I figured 59 would win. Its backers raised substantial funds and organized an effective grassroots campaign. I thought this was (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/10/refccentral.html) Referendum C all over again. Meanwhile, Jon Caldara was busy with his failed effort to curb union funding, and Hsieh and I were busy (http://www.seculargovernment.us/a48.shtml) fighting Amendment 48. It's tough when Team Liberty has to go up against the religious right and the statist left at the same time.

In the end three things worked together to defeat 59, I think. First, a lot of voters remember Referendum C, TaxTracks, etc., etc. When is enough enough? Second, the economy is a little shaky, and people realize they can put their own money to good use. Third, with so many ballot measures, I think "no" became the default vote for many.

Two other important tax hikes also failed: 51 and 58. And they lost by wide margins that surprised me. Amendment 51 would have raised the sales tax for "people with developmental disabilities," while 58 would have raised net taxes on energy producers.

Other Ballot Measures

I was sorry to see Amendment 49 lose. That would have prevented government from diverting funds from the paychecks of government employees to unions. But 49 got lumped in with two anti-union measures that I opposed: 47 ("right to work") and 54 (limiting campaign contributions by government contractors). It's too bad that, in their anti-union zeal, the conservatives didn't think about protecting individual rights. Had 49 run solo on the ballot, it would have had a much better chance.

Amendment 46, which would have banned race-based affirmative action by government, remains close, but it appears to be going down. That's too bad, but its practical implications would have been slight.

The other measure worth noting, Referendum O, (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/referendum/) went down to defeat. It would have made it harder to amend the state's constitution by ballot. So it's status quo.

As far as the ballot measures go, the big news is that 48 and 59 lost. Those were the two most important issues, they were both bad, and they both went down. And that's a big reason why I'm relatively pleased with the election results.

In the next and final part, I lay out a plan for the GOP to regroup and develop a new winning coalition.

Election Blues and Reviews IV: Toward GOP Revival

November 5, 2008

This essay is the fourth part of a series on the 2008 election. See also:
Part III: (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-iii-tax.html) Tax Hikes Lose
Part II: (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) Religious Right Loses
Part I: (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-i-created.html) Created Equal

How the Republican Party Can Create a New Winning Coalition

Barack Obama won. But his victory is not a victory for his ideas. Instead, John McCain lost. More importantly, George W. Bush lost. And Obama, with his powerful rhetoric and unspecific appeals to change and hope, won the personality contest by force, appealing especially to younger voters.

If Obama wishes to retain his party's Congressional majorities and head for easy reelection, he will govern from the center, as Colorado's Democrats have done. While some Americans did cast their votes for Obama and his political agenda, many cast theirs against McCain and his. While McCain energized the evangelical vote with his selection of Sarah Palin, he did so only by further alienating the segments of his base concerned with free speech, civil liberties, and economic freedom. The Republican coalition has shattered.

The Democrats offer no viable alternative. Theirs is a platform of corporate welfare, special-interest warfare, dependency, higher taxes, foreign-policy appeasement, global handouts, and central economic planning. This is a platform that can win only when their opponents fail to offer a compelling alternative (or, in the case of Bush and McCain, succeed in offering a worse one).

Independents and many Republicans are weary of the GOP's faith-based politics. George W. Bush is an evangelical, and, largely because of that, he failed miserably as president, massively expanding the power of the federal government and leading an altruistic war in Iraq. The religious right has destroyed the GOP's coalition, and the party now seems poised to become a "permanent minority."

Is there any way that the Republican Party can generate a new, winning coalition? Yes, they can. The question is whether they will. If they fail to do so, the big political action will move to the Democratic primaries—unless this causes an eventual Democratic schism and the formation of a new party to replace the Grand Old one. So what would a winning GOP coalition look like?

1. Religious Freedom. The religious right has held the reins of the Republican Party for far too long—and has driven it straight over a cliff. A fertilized egg is not a person. A woman has a right to get an abortion. Homosexuals deserve equal rights. The government should not subsidize religious institutions, fund religious education, or censor Biblically-incorrect expression.

At the same time, people have the right to worship as they see fit—so long as they respect the rights of others—or not to worship at all. People have the right to teach their children their values, whether at home or at privately funded religious schools. Religion must stay out of politics, and the state must stay out of religion.

Religious voters can remain a part of a winning GOP coalition, so long as their goal is to keep politics out of religion, not inject religion into politics. Abortion bans and fear mongering about homosexuals can no longer be the litmus tests of primaries. Republican candidates must clearly endorse the separation of church and state, a separation necessary for the protection of both church and state.

As for those who insist on imposing God's alleged will on the rest of us, let them join their compatriots on the left—as many are already doing. They can only corrupt and impede a new liberty coalition.

2. Free Speech. McCain's lasting legacy is his campaign censorship law. Let the left hold a monopoly on censorship, with its absurdly named "Fairness Doctrine" and government controls of media. Censorship cannot be part of a winning liberty coalition, and a candidate who surrounds the First Amendment with scare quotes cannot lead it.

The GOP should push the civil libertarians of the left into an uncomfortable decision: support the Demcratic censors or support free speech.

3. Free Trade and Economic Freedom. Bill Clinton's left understands basic economics. They understand it in an Ivy League, positivist, and interventionist sort of way, but they do not pander to populist protectionism (much). They know what damage the Smoot-Hawley Tariff did to the country, and they understand the concept of comparative advantage. In this election, McCain played "me too" to Obama's protectionist rhetoric.

A new liberty coalition under the GOP could attract the secularist yuppies of the left who are repelled by the faith-based politics of the right but who enjoy the prosperity of a relatively free economy.

McCain pounded the final nail in his own coffin when he suspended his campaign so that he could rubber-stamp Bush's $700 billion corporate welfare scheme, thereby proving to the free-market segment of the GOP base that McCain, like Bush, cares nothing for economic liberty and will work tirelessly to destroy it.

As it stands, advocates of economic liberty have no political home. The GOP should jettison those huge-government conservatives who confuse compassion with brute political force. Let them join the statists on the left, where they belong.

4. Immigration Sanity. In addition to alienating homosexuals and most women of reproductive age, Republicans have gone out of their way to demonize immigrants. The "family values" voters have wrecked families and torn children from their parents in their anti-immigrant, protectionist zeal. This sort of ignorant populism has no place in a new liberty coalition.

By drawing up sensible immigration policies that open the legal flow of immigrants and treat illegal immigrants with compassion, the retooled GOP would attract the votes of Hispanics and those who understand that one person's gain is, in a free country, another person's gain, and that we can only benefit by welcoming hard-working foreigners to our shores.

5. A foreign policy for America. The Republican foreign policy is to send forth the U.S. military to bring democracy to the world and vanquish oppressors. The Democratic foreign policy is to kiss the feet of our enemies and send forth the U.S. military to intervene in tribal warfare. A sane foreign policy looks to America's legitimate defense, intervenes militarily only to stop serious threats to America, and otherwise practices benevolent disengagement.

A new liberty coalition needs neither the imperialistic neo-conservatives nor the head-in-the-sand pacifists.

The political marriage of McCain and Palin illustrates perfectly the problems of the GOP. McCain alienates those who care about civil and economic liberties. Palin alienates the secularists. They represent the main two types of Republicans today. I cannot point to a single leader within the Republican Party prepared to take on the hard work of generating a new liberty coalition.

Yet, if they want to regain political power—and, more importantly, if they want to restore the founding ideals that made America great—Republicans will find or create such leaders, fast. They have no time to lose. If Democrats manage to govern from the center and avoid a backlash, they appear set to hold power indefinitely. The alternative to the new liberty coalition under the GOP is the stagnation or eventual death of the Republican Party.

Comment by Sylvia Bokor: I would add that to return the GOP to the champion of individual rights, a tenet much embedded in the GOP must be repudiated for the same reason that the Religious Right must be repudiated. That tenet is the call to sacrifice one's selfish interests to the collective. Let the Democrats live in that fool's notion of paradise. Let the GOP discover that the core of the self is one's rational values. It is moral to pursue one's selfish interest. To ask individuals to sacrifice one's rational values is to ask them to betray morality. As Ayn Rand wrote: "For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil."

Comment by Bryan Lovely: Religious voters are perfectly welcome to express their opinions to deplore whatever they find deplorable—that's just free speech. And if they're successful in the marketplace of ideas, they'll eventually delegitimize abortion, atheism, whatever, even though those things remain technically legal. I just don't want them trying to legislate their morality into law, because (a) it's immoral to do so in a democracy based on separation of church and state, and (b) they scare away otherwise centrist voters—especially women—because of abortion absolutism.

Comment by Mark: Seriously, I know a lot of big A Atheists who voted for Sara Palin and "that guy she was running with", myself included. Her religion is no more nuttier than Obama's, and her record indicates one who does not try to shove her religion on others. Palin wasn't the problem. McCain rushing off to vote FOR a 750 Billion dollar bailout was the problem.

48 Supporters Aim to Try Again

November 6, 2008

As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) anticipated, the huge loss of (http://www.seculargovernment.us/a48.shtml) Amendment 48 has not dampened the plans of the religious right. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution.

A blogger named Dani (http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot.com/2008/11/amendment-48-was-smacked-down.html) emphasizes the point. Dani is "a right-wing Christian fanatic on assignment from God to be a good helper to my husband and to train up my children with the Fear and Admonition of the Lord!" Okay, then.

Dani looks on the bright side of Amendment 48's defeat:

Even though Amendment 48 didn't pass, we still consider this a victory for the pro-life movement since over 550,000 people voted to affirm the personhood of the pre-born Child yesterday in Colorado! On only a $200,000 budget, it's hard to compete with multi-million dollar corporations like Planned Parenthood who put out deceitful attack ads packed with lies in order to defeat Amendment 48. Well, we certainly wouldn't expect godless baby-killers to be honest while promoting their agenda, now would we? The majority of people are evil, and the majority voted against personhood, but we are not giving up that easy, in fact, the battle has just begun...

Notice that Dani does not specify a single "lie" by the opposition. Certainly she could not find any such faults with the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper written by Diana Hsieh and me criticizing Amendment 48.

Dani then reproduces the media release of a new group called Personhood USA, which "plans to assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process."

The group proudly declares that its purpose is to impose religious faith by law:

"Praise Jesus! The pro-life tide is rising in America, now is the time for the entire pro-life movement to turn the focus off from permitting murder but attempting to 'regulate' it, to pushing for the recognition of the God given right to life for all innocent persons. Persons are humans beings from the moment of fertilization." Cal Zastrow, Co-Founder of Personhood USA.

Keith Mason, "one of the Personhood Amendment organizers," said, "Personhood has changed the abortion debate. Now we are asking, 'When does human life begin?' The opposition can not and will not answer this question, but we can. And when we answer that question, we win."

Hsieh and I address the matter at length in our paper. Not a single advocate of Amendment 48 has even attempted to refute our arguments. (Wayne Laugesen has (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/11/amendment-48-and-personhood-reply-to.html) come the closest to doing so.)

Meanwhile, Mason and his crew have utterly failed to sustain an argument that personhood begins at fertilization. Notice that Mason says he can answer the question, but he refrains from doing so in the release. The "argument" at PersonhoodUSA's (http://www.personhoodusa.com/node/1) web page is childish equivocation.

So pony up, Mason: prove to the world that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization, taking into account the issues that Hsieh and I raise in our paper. The fact that you cannot do so indicates why Coloradans did not take your movement seriously.

See PersonhoodUSA's (http://www.personhoodusa.com/) web page for a list of the 16 states the group plans to target in the future. The magnificent defeat of the measure in Colorado should slow down efforts elsewhere. Yet the group may still find some traction in some areas to the degree that people reject reason in favor of religious faith.

Republicans Win One: Bradford Bests Buescher

November 6, 2008

I'm not entirely displeased to see that Republican Laura Bradford beat incumbent Bernie Buescher in the Grand Junction state house race. Back in 2005, my dad and I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/08/buescher.html) blasted Buescher for supporting higher net taxes and for (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/08/cut.html) earning a zero rating from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Still, Bradford barely pulled off a surprise upset in a county that (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/county/mesa/) went 63 percent for McCain.

In this race, as in races across Colorado and the nation, voters were faced with a choice of two evils: political force in our private lives versus political force in our economic lives.

In a video on her web page, Bradford (http://www.bradfordforhouse.com/) criticizes Buescher and Governor Bill Ritter for wanting "higher taxes" and the obstruction of drilling. "My priorities are lower taxes, more jobs, a strong economy," Bradford says. She won on economic issues.

Yet elsewhere on her page she (http://www.bradfordforhouse.com/issues_pro_life.html) reaches out to the religious right:

Laura supports all life: the unborn, the unprotected, and elderly, the unwanted. She believes that the constitution ensures that ---the endowed rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Laura would support the efforts of lawmakers to define 'personhood' to include the unborn. Two recent cases in Mesa County, where a baby died after it was born due to grievous injuries caused to its mother, yet charges are not able to be brought against those who inflicted the injuries. Even in states like California, the baby of Lacy Peterson, little Connor Peterson, was considered a person, and his father charged and sentenced in the cause of his death.

NARAL (The National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws) is the political action arm of the pro-choice movement. During 2007, based on a point system—points assigned for actions IN SUPPORT of NARAL, Representative Bernie Buescher received a rating of 100. ...

Laura would not support any legislation changing the meaning of marriage from one man and one woman.

Laura does not oppose, however, the right for gays to have civil unions, shared estates, medical visitation or other common rights protected for all citizens.

Laura does not support the discrimination of any person.

Notice that Bradford is not shrilly anti-homosexual, as are many Republicans; the debate over marriage versus civil unions is a fair one. And Bradford's concern over criminal penalties for those who harm a woman's fetus do not justify her broader position, for criminal penalties can be applied based on the violation of the woman's rights. While she does not recognize the far-reaching implications of (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) Amendment 48, the personhood measure, at least she doesn't run on those implications (which is both good and bad).

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/statehouse08/ci_10906174) reports that Buescher said that "Republicans attacked him for his support of Ritter's controversial mill-levy freeze that kept tax rates from dropping and on oil and gas issues. Also, he was hit for his support of Senate Bill 200, a measure that bans discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs or sexual orientation."

S.B. 200 indicates what's wrong in the standard debate over homosexuality. The religious right declares homosexuality a sin, consistently demonizes homosexuals, and aims to legally discriminate against them. The left wants to force people to associate with homosexuals in violation of the rights of property, contract, and expression—that is what 200 accomplishes. How can homosexuals ask for the right to contract freely when some refuse to recognize the equal rights of others? The correct position is that homosexuality is fine and should be socially accepted, homosexuals should have their rights fully respected, but those hostile to homosexuals also have rights that should be respected, even when they practice those rights badly. So beating up Buescher over 200 was entirely appropriate.

From what I can tell, Buescher lost for all the right reasons. And that is another bit of good news regarding election day in Colorado.

Marshall Fritz, 1943-2008

November 7, 2008

Marshall Fritz has just passed away from pancreatic cancer, I just learned. The (http://www.sepschool.org/essays/fritz/bio.php) founder of the Separation of School and State Alliance, Fritz advocated a truly free market in education, criticizing conservative voucher proposals for risking government control over now-private education.

I first met Fritz back in 1997. I had written one of Fritz's acquaintances a letter about education, and the recipient had forwarded the letter to Fritz. He wrote to me: "I'm going to be in Denver shortly tomorrow, Tuesday... I was *very* excited reading your letter. Do give me a call, please; my name is Marshall Fritz... We're with the Seperation of School and State; you're insights on the voucher are right on target."

I happened to take some notes of our conversation, and they reveal that even then we differed dramatically in our basic ideas even as we agreed on the politics of education. Fritz was a Catholic libertarian, while I was an atheistic libertarian who eventually grew apart from libertarianism as well. I wrote, "Fritz seems to reify evil. He talks about how, 'If there's evil, there must be the opposite of evil, or, God'."

"Fritz argues that the liberals will take over the vouchers within a few years."

"You can de-claw a lion, and it's still a lion. You can de-fang a tiger, and it's still a tiger. But what do you have if you take God out of morality?" I forget the particular beasts involved in the analogy, but that's the idea. Fritz means this as a rhetorical question, to mean, "Morality is nothing without god." I, on the other hand, am tempted to answer his question, "It's a good start."

Fritz seemed keen on making Catholicism more evangelical. He told this joke: "What do you get when you cross a Catholic with a Jehova's Witness? Somebody who rings the door bell but then has nothing to say."

He gave me some writing advice (which I occasionally take): sentences that begin with "you" should be in a two-to-one ration to sentences that begin with "I."

This line is hilarious, given the post-9/11 hysteria: "He lost his wallet and was talking himself onto planes with his picture in his newsletter."

"He bought flowers—3 supermarket boquets—for Tancredo's wife." I don't recall if this was the first time I met Tom Tancredo, but it was definitely the only time I've been to his house.

We went to the offices of the Colorado Education Association (why I have no idea). Here's what I wrote about that:

My notes on the CEA meeting: 1) He was pretty harsh with Ms. Davis. She said, "we can always improve." He said, "well, our position is that socialism by its very nature cannot be reformed but can only get worse," or some such. 2) The main lady said standards are needed; his main objection is that standards would be too low to be meaningful.

I quoted one of the CEA representatives about Fritz, "He's a nice person, though I disagree with everything he says."

Fritz came back to Denver in 1998, and I picked him up at the airport. I sat in on an interview between Fritz and Janet Bingham of the Denver Post. Her article reads:

Get government out of education, pitchman says

The Denver Post—Wednesday, June 24, 1998

Janet Bingham, Denver Post Education Writer

Marshall Fritz is a salesman. His pitch: Get the government completely out of education.

He wants to end compulsory education and end all government taxation and support for schools.

The result—which even supporters say is a long shot at best—would be the replacement of all tax-supported education, including vouchers, with privately supported schools or home schools.

Government-run schools, he contends, don't work because the "politically strong" are able to impose their views of what education should be on the "politcally weak"—whether they be traditional Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics or any other group. ...

Fritz... claims that more than 3,800 educators, parents, clergy and policy leaders nationwide have signed his proclamation calling for an end to government compulsion in education funding, attendance, and content. ...

Among Coloradans on the list: Tom Tancredo, former president of the Golden-based Independence Institute and Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in the 6th Congressional District; John Andrews, 1990 Republican candidate for governor in Colorado; and Kevin Irvine, 1991 Colorado Teacher of the Year.

A Post editorial of June 28 blasted Fritz:

The California-based Separation of School And State Alliance, with the approval of some Coloradans, would like to see an end to compulsory school attendance and government financing of education.

The Denver Post would not. Education is the highest obligation that government at all levels must face...

Free and compulsory education is the bulwark of a free society and the best insurance that it will stay free. Obviously it is sometimes wasteful, sometimes slapdash and sometimes listless, but it is an established system that can be counted on to give all children a shot at improving their lives. Improving it is an urgent need. Abolishing it is absurd.

The mere fact that Fritz made his agenda a part of the public debate is impressive.

Fritz returned later in 1998 to lead a conference on school and state. The (http://www.freecolorado.com/1999/01/sepconintro.html) articles I wrote about the event were the first I published through FreeColorado.com (then the Colorado Freedom Report at www.co-freedom.com).

Earlier this year I wrote to him, "Marshall, I'm very sorry to hear the news. It's good to hear, though, that you're keeping your spirits up. Thank you for everything you've done to advance liberty."

He answered on March 17:

Ari....

Thank you.

I still fondly remember you're driving me, our discussion on tutoring and freedom, and Haley's Comet.

And, of course, staying in Tom Tancredo's home.

Love,

Marshall

Marshall was an eccentric and gregarious man who lived his ideals. While we often disagreed, I'll miss his optimistic enthusiasm.

CBS News 4 Webcast Now Online

November 8, 2008

On election night I joined a (http://cbs4denver.com/) CBS News 4 webcast, which is now (http://cbs4denver.com/video/?id=49069@kcnc.dayport.com&cid=110) available online.

A friendly Democrat named Rafael Noboa joined the discussion with two journalists from the station.

I explained why I voted for neither candidate, why Amendments 48 and 59 were bad ideas, and why the Republicans lost votes with their faith-based politics. We also touched on government involvement in health care and education.

It was a lot of fun, and overall I'm pleased with my remarks. (I do plan to do some work to improve my presentation).

The whole thing lasts 37 minutes. I hope you enjoy watching it as much as I enjoyed participating.

Ari's Perfect Margarita

November 8, 2008

Vilis (http://ozols.com/margarit.htm) claims to offer the "World's Greatest Margarita Recipe." I'm proud to announce that, while my margarita recipe was inspired by his, mine is a vast improvement.

I few days ago I purchased two mixed bags of lemons and limes from the sale rack for $2. I loaded them up with visions of margaritas floating in my head. I ended up with over a quart of hand-squeezed juice, so I'll be making margaritas for days.

The problem with prepared margarita mixes is that they're mostly corn syrup and, you know, yuck. Vilis's margarita recipe calls for a can of frozen lemonade concentrate. The problem is that I couldn't find one of these that didn't feature corn syrup (still yuck). Plus Vilis called for sugar to sweeten especially sour lemonade. A second problem with Vilis's mix is that it calls for lemon and lime "juice concentrate." Well, the concentrate stuff is hardly as good as freshly squeezed juice. I solved both problems with the following recipe.

1. 1.5 cups of freshly squeezed lemon-lime juice.
2. 1 can of 100% frozen white grape juice concentrate. This sweetens the mix nicely.
3. 1/3 bottle of cheap, rice-based beer (Bud, Coors, etc.)
4. 1.5 cups of tequila. Vilis likes Jose Cuervo; I use Sauza Hornito.
5. 1/2 cup Grand Marnier.

Vilis blends his mix with ice. I prefer to poor my mix over the rocks. Then "stop hiding, and start living, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi_Fi8LeCdM) with tequila."

GOP Not Sufficiently Evangelical?

November 10, 2008

J.C. Watts (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/34166069.html) argues in an article for the Las Vegas Review Journal:

In 2006, 66 percent of the evangelical community did not vote. In 2004, 52 percent of evangelicals did not vote. In 2000, 75 percent did not vote.

I haven't seen any stats on 2008 yet, but I'm not confident that McCain attracted a large segment of that vote, for whatever reason. He certainly stood for their values and principles more strongly than Obama, but couldn't seem to close the sale.

When you consider there are approximately 66 million evangelicals—some place it as high as 90-100 million—GOP candidates win when this demographic votes.

Watts hardly gets to the crux of the problem. As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-iv-toward.html) reviewed, McCain selected Sarah Palin in order to secure the evangelical vote. His strategy worked to a large degree, but it carried the cost of alienating many independents, women, and nonsectarian Republicans. If selecting hard-core evangelical Palin isn't enough to secure the evangelical vote, that proves only that nothing short of an outright theocrat could do so, but such a candidate would further alienate everyone else. The GOP can win on faith-based politics in the South, but the issue is a clear loser in other regions, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) such as Colorado.

But the category of "evangelical" is also difficult to pin down. I don't know what sources Watts has in mind, but some fraction of every demographic doesn't vote. Also, evangelicals do not all necessarily vote the same. For example, around a third of evangelicals (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/mccains.html) think abortion should remain legal. So, by appealing to some evangelicals on faith-based politics, the GOP risks losing even some evangelicals, particularly those who recognize that keeping religion out of politics also means keeping politics out of religion.

If the GOP takes Watts's advice and becomes more religious, the party will lose even worse, particularly on the coasts and in the Interior West.

Comment: Ari, you wouldn't have any ststistics to back that up, would you? Everything I've seen suggested the contrary --- that Palin attracted a fair bit of the independent vote.

Comment by Ari: A "fair bit" does not imply a majority. I have no doubt that Palin attracted many rural nonsectarian voters. However, a poll conducted a few days before the election (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/24/rockycbs4-poll-obama-has-12-point-lead-state/) showed Obama with a Colorado lead among independents 58 to 27 percent.

Comment by Paul Hsieh: The Las Vegas Review Journal has just printed my LTE responding to Watts: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/34259769.html GOP recipe J.C. Watts is prescribing the exact wrong formula for the Republican Party's problems (Review-Journal, Nov. 9). I'm an independent voter who supports strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and individual rights (including Second Amendment rights). But I did not vote Republican in 2008 precisely because of their alliance with the Religious Right. Americans still want small government. In my home "swing" state of Colorado, voters rejected three tax increases to provide more social programs "for the children." But they also resoundingly rejected the anti-abortion Amendment 48 (which would declare a fertilized egg a legal "person") and defeated pro-life conservative Republicans Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Schaffer. If Republicans reaffirmed the principles of limited government and separation of church and state, then I'd be happy to support them again. But if they stay in bed with the Religious Right, they will continue to alienate many independent voters and lose elections. And deservedly so.

Ayn Rand Doesn't Need a Bailout

November 10, 2008

The Following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081110/COLUMNISTS/811099989/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Ayn%20Rand%20doesn%27t%20need%20a%20bailout) was published on November 10, 2008, in Grand Junction's Free Press.

Ayn Rand doesn't need a bailout

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Ayn Rand recognized a common pattern in the growth of political power: the enemies of liberty blame the free market for economic problems caused by government interference, then use those problems as a pretext for yet more political controls. Much of Rand's prescient novel Atlas Shrugged revolves around that cycle.

Now Rand's critics sound exactly like the villains of Atlas. They wouldn't attack her if they didn't recognize her as a barrier to their grand central plans.

Recently Alan Greenspan fueled the Rand hunt. In an October 23 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/crisishearing_10-23.html) statement to a Congressional committee, Greenspan said he had "found a flaw" in his ideology of "free, competitive markets."

There's just one problem with Greenspan's statement: he practiced no such ideology. For two decades, Greenspan served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a central-planning agency tasked with manipulating the money supply. Greenspan's flaw is that he long ago abandoned the ideology of liberty.

Two decades before becoming a central planner, Greenspan, while still in association with Rand, warned of the dangers of the Federal Reserve. In a 1966 article, Greenspan noted that, in the late 20s, the "Federal Reserves pumped excessive reserves into American banks." This "spilled over into the stock market—triggering a fantastic speculative boom." Sound familiar? Greenspan became the monster he once warned against.

Today's crisis centers around risky home loans. But were these loans made on a free market? No. Instead, they were encouraged, and in some cases mandated, by the federal government.

Not everyone has forgotten Rand's wise criticisms of central planning. Before the election, we asked Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute to summarize the causes of today's crisis.

Brook answered, "The most harmful instances of government interference in the economy include, but are not limited to: the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low and the money supply artificially high, the government's hand in the creation and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, other government 'affordable housing' policies including the Community Reinvestment Act, and the policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed 'too big to fail'."

Brook further explained the damage of government inflation: "As Ludwig Von Mises and other members of the Austrian school of economics stressed, inflation does not simply raise everyone's prices. It leads to massive, unfair redistributions of wealth. It starts with the injection of money into one sector of the economy, where participants are rewarded with higher prices for their products—most recently, we saw an enormous redistribution of wealth to those involved in home-buying—and then gradually spreads to drive up all prices higher than they would be absent the inflationary spending."

The cycle Rand warned about is in full force. Brook noted, "Unfortunately, despite a few enlightened and courageous voices out there, most politicians and commentators are blaming greed and the market for the current crisis and demanding more government control of markets as the solution—and most of the public believes them. The media share the general cultural antipathy toward genuine capitalism, so they are inclined to publicize views that blame the market for today's problems."

Both major candidates for president followed that stock line. While John McCain also (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/445304.aspx) blamed unspecified "corruption in Washington," he (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/16/politics/fromtheroad/entry4452777.shtml) emphasized the "greed and mismanagement of Wall Street."

Barack Obama (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/790c55e6-8804-11dd-b114-0000779fd18c.html) blamed greed and deregulation, despite the fact that nobody can point to the repeal of a regulation that could have caused the crisis. By contrast, the mechanisms by which government controls caused the crisis are clear.

Obama's rhetoric ignores the nature of the free market, in which the government consistently protects the individual rights of each participant.

Can people be "greedy" on a free market? If that means they can pursue their own prosperity and happiness while respecting the rights of others, sure. If greed means people can use political force to get their way, then we're no longer talking about the free market—we're talking about the sort of system that McCain and Obama advocate.

Does the government "regulate" the market by protecting property rights, resolving contractual disputes, arresting those who threaten and practice brute force, and rooting out fraud? In a sense, yes. But by imposing political controls that infringe people's rights, the government makes the market irregular and disrupts the rational plans of individual participants.

Unfortunately, Obama has sworn to impose even more economic controls. He wants more corporate welfare and more central planning for energy. He wants to further socialize medicine, even though costs are so high because of existing political controls of the health market. He wants increased federal spending, resulting in higher taxes or more deficit spending.

Obama's central plans are bound to create more economic problems, which he will no doubt blame on whatever liberty we have left. At least Rand through her works will continue to set the record straight.

Comment by Rob Diego: It is clear that the mortgage crisis and the impact that it is having on our whole economy represent the failure of socialism, not capitalism. It is quasi-governmental agencies and overly regulated companies that caused this problem. The very people who were rewarded with power by the voters in 2008 are the same people who caused this crisis, Obama, Frank, Dodd, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and ACORN are the culprits who caused this problem.

FreeColorado.com Celebrates Ten-Year Anniversary

November 11, 2008

Media Release: November 11, 2008

FreeColorado.com Celebrates Ten-Year Anniversary

Ari Armstrong's FreeColorado.com celebrates its ten year anniversary this month. Since November, 1998, the web page has become a leading, independent voice for free markets and individual rights in Colorado.

"While I'm amazed that it's been ten years since I started writing on the internet about politics, I'm pleased with the results. While I've lost many political battles, I've also helped to win some, and throughout I've provided a consistent voice for liberty in Colorado," Armstrong said.

"I've also had the privilege of meeting some of Colorado's leading politicians, journalists, and activists, some of whom have become friends, fellow travelers, or political adversaries—and sometimes all three.

"I look forward to fighting for freedom for the next decade," Armstrong continued.

Following are a few of the highlights:

* Armstrong started his web page in November, 1998, a few months before the term "blog" was coined from "weblog" (see Wikipedia). Originally the web page, called the Colorado Freedom Report, used the domain co-freedom.com. Armstrong learned about web pages from the book "HTML for Dummies." Around 2003, he switched the domain to FreeColorado.com, and in January, 2008, he converted the page to a blog format.

* Armstrong has also written articles for the Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post, and other newspapers, as well as for the Independence Institute. He wrote a column for Boulder Weekly from October, 2003, to March, 2007. Since July, 2005, he has co-authored a column for Grand Junction's Free Press.

* He has debated Tom Mauser on guns, John Suthers on drugs, and Andrew Romanoff on taxes.

* This year, Armstrong also came out with his first book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles (see ValuesOfHarryPotter.com).

* Armstrong has fought against the Referendum C net tax hike, the Blue Laws, corporate welfare, the smoking ban, eminent domain abuses, and Amendment 48 (defining a fertilized egg as a person). He has advocated legal abortion, free markets in medicine, domestic partnerships for gay couples, and the re-legalization of marijuana.

* In 2002, Armstrong joined a broad coalition to reform Colorado's asset forfeiture laws. The coalition included Shawn Mitchell, Bill Thiebaut, Terrance Carroll, Dave Kopel, the Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, and the Colorado Progressive Coalition.

* In 2001 and 2004, Armstrong served as assistant editor for Sheriff Bill Masters's books critical of America's drug policy.

* While Armstrong once volunteered for the Libertarian Party of Colorado and worked on contract to produce its newsletter, by 2005 he had quit the party and left the libertarian movement.

* Armstrong has been praised as the "founding father of pro-freedom Colorado webbing," responsible for "great independent work."

* Armstrong has also been criticized as a "known misinformationist," a "gun rights zealot," "the Pied Piper of Colorado," a non-"legitimate reporter," "the self appointed Lord High Minister of Libertarian Purity," and a "felonious dick stepper onner." He has received one death threat.

Armstrong said, "I have angered nearly every political faction in Colorado, met some strange bedfellows, entered some heated battles, and earned some dear friends. I've made a few mistakes and grown from them. I've also been proud to advocate individual rights in this state."

Personhoood: Steve Van Horn Misrepresents Hsieh

November 11, 2008

Colorado just defeated Amendment 48 by 73 to 27 percent. The measure would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, with all the rights to life, liberty, property, equality of justice, and due process of law. I worked with Diana Hsieh to (http://seculargovernment.us/a48.shtml) help defeat it.

I've been meaning to reply to an October 27 (http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/10185/OPINION:_Rebuttal_to_Diana_Hsieh/) article by Steve Van Horn that attacks an earlier (http://www.pagosadailypost.com/news/10164/OPINION:_Abortion_Is_a_Woman%27s_Right/) piece by Hsieh. Even though the election is over, the matter is still worth addressing, as it shows the sorts of weak arguments made by the supporters of Amendment 48.

Hsieh expressly counters the argument that "human life" is sufficient for personhood:

Opponents of abortion claim that embryos and fetuses have the same right to life as babies because they are distinct, living human beings. Undoubtedly, an embryo or fetus is alive, not inert matter. It's also human--not canine or hippopotamus. Yet every distinct, living skin cell a person washes off in the shower also contains human DNA. A tumor is human tissue distinct from its host. The embryo or fetus is different: it might develop into a born baby. Yet the differences between an embryo or fetus and that born baby are vast.

Notice that Hsieh explicitly notes why an "embryo or fetus is different" from a skin cell or tumor. Yet, ignoring Hsieh's statement, Van Horn claims that what Hsieh "fails to distinguish is the difference between a distinct living cell and a unique living being."

Then Van Horn explains that an eagle's egg, like a human egg, has the capacity to develop into an adult member of the species. But so what? Van Horn points out that current law provides criminal penalties for destroying an eagle's egg. It also provides criminal penalties for gratuitously injuring an adult dog or cat, but none of those things is a person. More to the point, none of those things is contained wholly within the body of a woman, and the fact that a fertilized egg is in such a condition is why the woman (and not anyone else) has the right to get an abortion.

Next Van Horn argues that, as there are "vast" differences between a fertilized egg and a born infant, so there are "differences between an infant, a toddler, a teenager, a middle aged adult and a 98 year old." Then Van Horn argues that, as a fertilized egg is dependent on the woman, so is an infant. But in these arguments Van Horn utterly ignores the relevant distinctions. His is an exercise in absurdist rationalism.

Hsieh briefly summarizes those distinctions:

In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo has nothing in common with an infant except its DNA. Its form is similar to the embryos of other mammals; it cannot survive outside the womb; it lacks any kind of awareness. To call that clump of cells a "person" is sheer nonsense.

Even when more developed, the fetus is not a biologically separate entity capable of independent action, like a baby. It exists as part of the woman carrying it, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is not yet an individual human life; it is not yet a person.

Van Horn simply refuses to confront the substance of Hsieh's argument. Instead, he closes by equating a fertilized egg with a person and abortion with murder. The opponents of abortion go through the motions of debating the issue, but their arguments are hollow, obvious attempts to paper over the fact that their position derives not from reason but from religious faith.

Comment by Jonathan:

Sorry Ari but you've gone over the top trying to "refute" Van Horn here.

I am disappointed in you for using phrases such as "absurdist" and "not from reason" instead of rationally confronting the arguments.

Van Horn *does* address and confront the points you say he doesn't.

Hsieh does say a fetus is different because it might develop into a baby, but she essentially ignores that statement in the rest of the column while using the preceding comparison to skin cells to support her argument. I believe this is why Van Horn ignores it as well, because she did.

He does not "ignore[s] the relevant distinctions." The only distinction Hsieh really brings up as relevant is being a "biologically separate entity capable of independent action." That distinction is addressed by Van Horn when he brings up the amount of dependence a born infant has on its mother, which is hardly less than that of a fetus.

Hsieh's other distinction is simply an unsupported opinion statement that the differences between a fetus and born baby are "vast." She does not define what the differences are or the "vastness" of them, so it is hard to refute.

Claiming "so what" in reference to the statement that an eagle's egg will develop into an eagle is wrong. This is in fact the very basis of ethical arguments about abortion.

Allowing the eagle's egg to hatch will create an eagle. Destroying the egg is equivalent to destroying that future eagle.

The ethical principle here is that a person is responsible for actions taken that affect the future in reasonably predictable ways.

There is certainly room to disagree on how predictable the future event is and how responsibility is spread between decision makers and between those who take action and those who avoid action. (The one who gives a habitual drunk driver a bottle of vodka and car keys vs. one who watches and does nothing, for example.)

You also attempt to obscure Van Horn's point about criminal penalties for eagle egg destruction with dogs and cats while ignoring the reason he brought it up. The reason the law provides those criminal penalties is *because* egg destruction destroys a future eagle, even though the egg is not *currently* an eagle. Very relevant to the discussion.

Comment by Ari: I posted Jonathan's comments because he seemed to put a bit of effort into them, but he doesn't actually respond to any of my arguments, so I need make only a cursory reply here. To review, the measure in question would have defined a fertilized egg as a person. The fact that an eagle's egg is (potentially) "a future eagle" doesn't prove that an eagle's egg is an eagle or that a fertilized egg is a person. But the major point is that, unlike an eagle's egg, a fertilized egg is contained within a woman's body, which is why she has the right to terminate it.

Palin Has, Like, A Good Point on Deficits

November 11, 2008

Now that Sarah Palin is safely back in Alaska, I can't help but love her, just a little.

The bad news for Republicans is that Palin (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/10/palin-blames-bush-policies-gop-defeat/) thinks she might actually run for President some day:

I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door.

Please—enough with the plowing.

Palin did manage to point to a real failing of the Bush administration:

I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration?

Her figure is (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) correct, though of course we only reached that marker under Bush, who had a bit of help.

But I'm like, okay, at least the debt is still (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) less than the GDP! I'm sure Our Savior Barack Obama will be more than happy to plow through that door.

You Are Not Alone

November 12, 2008

COCORE will purchase eleven Colorado billboards stating, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone," the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/11/billboard-dont-believe-god---you-are-not-alone/) reports.

COCORE is "an umbrella organization of 11 groups ranging from the Boulder Heretics to the Humanists of Colorado." I wanted a bit more detail, so I looked up the organization's (http://cocore.org/) web page.

The Colorado Coalition of Reason consists of various groups listed at its web page. It also has a (http://www.cocore.org/reading_list.html) reading list that, while interesting, serves as a reminder that atheism is not a positive philosophy. Atheism means merely a lack of belief in God (and by extension a supernatural realm), which hardly implies that any of a particular atheist's positive beliefs are correct. It matters far more what you believe in.

Comment by Cal: A good campaign; but, as you say, it needs to lead to more than a dead-end. It would be cool if it was part of a series. For instance, the "you are not alone" ad is an "unfreezing", provocative ad. The other ad mentioned—the one in New York—says:"Why believe in god? Just be good for goodness sake?" That's a step in the right direction. Finally, there could be an ad that had a message, telling people that there is a rational approach to being good.

Sickening Display

November 12, 2008

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/business/economy/12lobbying.html) summarizes what's been happening with the "bailout" money: "When the government said it would spend $700 billion to rescue the nation's financial industry, it seemed to be an ocean of money. But after one of the biggest lobbying free-for-alls in memory, it suddenly looks like a dwindling pool."

You mean those with political power are the ones to get the loot? (http://atlasshrugged.com/) Who ever would have guessed?

Remember that George W. Bush and John McCain are largely responsible for this gigantic swindle. And that's one of the big reasons why McCain lost and richly deserved to lose.

FreeColorado.com in the Media, 2008

November 12, 2008

This month (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/freecoloradocom-celebrates-ten-year.html) marks the ten-year anniversary of FreeColorado.com. One indication of the continuing influence of the web page is the media coverage it received this year. In 2008, FreeColorado.com or I appeared in outside media 21 times. This is in addition to the twice-monthly columns that my father and I write for Grand Junction's Free Press; see the (http://www.freecolorado.com/perpetual/fparchive.html) archives. Here I'll review those 21 pieces.

Reply to Campos

On January 18, the Rocky Mountain News published my (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/18/speakout-loading-the-dice-against-responsibility/) Speakout, "Loading the dice against responsibility." I was responding to Paul Campos's attack on those who advocate "individual responsibility:"

... Myriad economic controls, along with payroll taxes of 15 percent, make it hard for the poor to get ahead. Welfare programs have discouraged work, encouraged broken families, and displaced voluntary charity. Government-run schools and other programs often underserve the poor. ...

The fact is that some people born into chronic poverty break the cycle, earn a decent education, and rise to the middle class or beyond. They are able to do it through strength of character. ...

I believe that it is precisely because political programs rely upon the forcible redistribution of wealth and the forcible restraint of voluntary interaction that such programs tend to miss their lofty aims.

That is not to say that government plays no legitimate role.

Government can be effective when it sticks to protecting people's rights—that is, preventing crime and protecting people and their property from violence.

Bitch Slap

On January 24, the Denver Post ran a story about how ProgressNowAction was beating up Jon Caldara for using the term "bitch slap" on air. I wrote a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/bitch-slapping-caldara.html) longish post explaining that many left-wingers had also used the term. Moreover, on January 27 I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/progressnowactionorg-used-bitch-slap-in.html) discovered that ProgressNowAction's "web page published the term 'bitch slap' just last year." This led to some nasty attacks against me by Colorado Media Matters (which I can't help but thinking of as "Media Blathers"), to which I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/reply-to-colorado-media-matters.html) replied.

On January 26, Lynn Bartels wrote for the Rocky Mountain News, "A liberal group targeted conservative talk host Jon Caldara for using the term bitch slap... Blogger Ari Armstrong noted Friday that three alternative newspapers along the Front Range have used the term at least 20 times... 'ProgressNow is clearly going after Caldara because they don't like Caldara,' said Armstrong."

On January 28, I appeared on Peter Boyles's radio show to discuss the matter. The same day, Mark Wolf of Rocky Talk Live wrote, "Jon Caldera managed to get liberal media watchdog group Progress Now to take the bait and generate lots of attention for his late-night radio show by wondering if Hillary Clinton got 'bitch-slapped' during a debate. Now blogger Ari Armstrong reports ProgressNow used 'bitch slap' on its own site last September..." (Progress Now and Media Blathers have huffily pointed out that this comment was left by somebody not employed by ProgressNow, though I've never claimed otherwise.)

On January 30, the Colorado Springs Gazette wrote in an editorial, "[B]logger Ari Armstrong found that three Front Range progressive newsweeklies... routinely published 'bitch slap.' He even found 'bitch-slap' on a ProgressNow Action blog."

It's a bit ironic that I generated so much media attention about an issue that on the surface carries few ideological implications. However, I did make an effort to (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/free-speech-and-offensive-speech.html) draw out the deeper significance of the debate. And I'm glad to have stopped the politically-motivated attack on Caldara.

Health Policy

Early 2008 was marked by a heated battle over health policy. While Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh of (http://westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine carried the heavy load, I wrote quite a lot about the issue.

On January 30, the Rocky Mountain News published a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/30/speakout-a-very-costly-health-care-solution/) Speakout by Linda Gorman and me titled, "A very costly health-care solution:"

As the health-care debate unfolds, we hear a lot about cost-shifting, the idea that some people are charged more for health care to make up for the fact that others do not pay. Various legislators, journalists and activists tell us that the state should adopt the Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform's recommendation to impose an individual mandate and force everyone to buy health insurance in order to end the unfairness of cost-shifting.

In fact, the commission's recommendations likely will shift more costs onto those who already have insurance. Along with the individual mandate, the commission recommends large subsidies for those whom the commission considers too poor to purchase the insurance it says they should have. ...

Defending Shawn Mitchell: In late February, State Senator Shawn Mitchell was unfairly accused of making racially insensitive ramarks. I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/fake-scandal-de-jour.html) explained why the charge was nonsense. On March 5, the Gazette quoted my post in an editorial:

"But let's say, hypothetically, that Mitchell's comment had some distant connection to the racist comment that people of Heritage X 'all look alike.' Then the force of Mitchell's comment would be to make fun of that racist comment. It's not racist to make fun of racists," wrote Ari Armstrong, on the blog www.freecolorado.com. In the days of "gotcha" politics, however, honest insight and analysis have no place."

"Studies Have Shown"

In February I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/studies-have-shown.html) questioned some of the claims about health policy made in a Denver Post article. This eventually led to a review of the story by Dave Kopel for the Rocky Mountain News, as I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/03/update-on-health-studies.html) reviewed. Kopel (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/08/kopel-too-often-a-crutch/) wrote:

Studies have shown you shouldn't blindly accept everything journalists tell you about what studies have shown. Consider, for example, "Growth spurt for kids' health plan," the Feb. 10 Denver Post article by Katy Human, writing about the push to expand taxpayer subsidies for health care for middle-class and poor children.

Human's article announced: "Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations, and less likely to be absent from school."

My friend Ari Armstrong is a columnist for the Grand Junction Free Press, and also the publisher of the Colorado Freedom Report weblog. Armstrong used to be a senior fellow at the Independence Institute and, although he's no longer formally affiliated with the institute, he still writes for us from time to time. Armstrong e-mailed Human and politely asked if she could send him the names of two or three of the studies she had in mind. ...

None of five studies Human cited after the fact support her article's statement about what "studies have shown" regarding the effects of insurance on emergency room use, vaccinations and school absences.

Prostitution

As much as I disliked Eliot Spitzer, I didn't think it appropriate to prosecute him for hiring prostitutes. I wrote a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/15/should-prostitution-be-legal/) Speakout for the Rocky arguing that prostitution should be legal:

Sometimes governments ban activities that are not vices, such as practicing homosexuality, coloring a pooch pink, taking marijuana for medical purposes or buying alcohol on Sundays. Widespread support exists for ending such uses of political force.

But prostitution is a vice. Should government therefore ban it? The proper purpose of government is to protect people's rights, not prevent vice beyond that context. ...

While the article is about prostitution, at a deeper level it's about what role government should play in our lives.

Welfare State

Last year, my wife and I spent a month eating for $2.57 per day each, as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/10/7news.html) recorded. On March 20, this earned me a spot in a news story from the Gazette about welfare policy:

The financial picture is getting worse for Colorado's working poor families, according to a study issued Wednesday... Ari Armstrong, a Denver area resident who writes online about political issues, said the calculator [publicized by the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute]—at least for him and his wife—is flawed.

"The calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing," Armstrong said. "We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less."

Armstrong took issue with other estimated monthly costs, including $358 for food and $453 for transportation—too high—and $317 in taxes—much lower than reality.

"I'm all for reducing taxes across the board, and especially for the poor," he said. "If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful. Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency."

Supreme Court Rules on Guns

On June 28, the Rocky published my (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/28/taking-aim-on-gun-decision/) article on the Supreme Court's gun ruling:

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed what most Coloradans have long held and what our state's constitution also strongly protects: the individual's right to own a gun.

The June 26 ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller overturns Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that guns be kept inoperable in the home. Gone is the fantasy that the Second Amendment protects only state militias. ...

Amendment 59

On September 7, Colorado Daily published my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/am-59-would-impose-new-forever-net-tax.html) article, "Am. 59 would impose new forever net tax hike:"

... Yet, even though Colorado voters approved a net tax hike just a few years ago expected to raise over $2 billion more than supporters originally suggested, the higher-tax crowd now want billions more. And let us not forget about the tax-funded FasTracks of 2004, the expected costs of which have exploded from $4.7 billion to $7.9 billion.

Don't be fooled by claims that the new measure is just about education. As one representative of the "yes" campaign noted in a September 1 e-mail, the measure (which advocates are calling Savings Accounts for Education) would "relieve pressure on higher education, health care, transportation and other core services." In other words, because the new taxes go to education, the legislature can transfer other funds from education to whatever it wants. ...

On October 14, Fox 31 News (http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7646014&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1) interviewed me about the measure.

As we know, this story had a happy outcome, as 59 was defeated at the polls.

Faith-Based Politics

I spent a great deal of time this election season fighting (http://seculargovernment.us/a48.shtml) Amendment 48, which was trounced. But that measure is only one aspect of the broader threat I see coming from the religious right.

On September 11, Boulder Weekly published my (http://www.boulderweekly.com/20080911/perspectives.html) article, "With Palin, McCain ignores Colorado Warning." (It turns out I was right about that.)

On September 23, the Pagosa Daily Post published my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/reply-to-kristi-burton-on-amendment-48.html) piece, "Amendment 48 Smoke Screen."

Diana Hsieh did the heavy lifting for an (http://www.boulderweekly.com/20081009/newsbriefs.html) article of ours published in the October 9 Boulder Weekly, "Abortion and Abolition"

Against the Bailout

I've written quite a lot about the bailout on my web page. On October 13, the Rocky published my (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/13/carroll-too-quick-to-invoke-depression/) letter:

... The Depression was set off by the federal controls of the Hoover administration, but "FDR's economic policies made the Great Depression much worse" and "caused it to last much longer than it otherwise would have," economist Thomas DiLorenzo writes in his history of American capitalism. We have more to fear from new, misguided federal controls than we do from the existing crisis. ...

Harry Potter

I remain pleased with my September 14 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/14/armstrong-lessons-for-us-politicians-from-the-of/) Speakout, "Lessons for U.S. politicians from the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry."

Then, on September 28, 9News (http://www.9news.com/video/default.aspx?aid=62179) broadcast a version of the piece.

On October 28, Westword's web page featured an (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2008/10/in_values_of_harry_potter_ari.php) interview between Joel Warner and me.

Warner writes:

No one is off limits from the cerebral scrutiny of local political writer Ari Armstrong. On his FreeColorado.com blog, he smacked down the liberal website ProgressNow for its hypocritical stance on the word "bitch-slapped." Lately right-wingers, too, have been feeling his highbrow wrath, thanks to columns he's published online and in newspapers arguing against GOP faith-based politics and the right-to-work issue on the November ballot. Armstrong was once a member of the Colorado Libertarian Party, but now the only thing he swears allegiance to is Ayn Rand's objectivism philosophy. That means he's all about the protection of individuals' rights and the promotion of economic and religious freedom—and he aims his weighty pen at anything contrary to these ideals.

Those interested in my book, Values of Harry Potter, should see its (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) web page.

Election 2008

On election night, I joined a webcast from CBS News 4 to discuss the election. The station has posted the 37 minute (http://cbs4denver.com/video/?id=49069@kcnc.dayport.com&cid=110) segment online.

It was an eventful year, and I feel I did my bit to spread the word about liberty.

Parker on GOP's 'Faustian Bargain'

November 13, 2008

Douglas Parker, who worked in the Nixon and Ford administrations, offered the following analysis of the Republican Party in a (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinion/l13repubs.html) letter to the New York Times:

... The party has made a Faustian bargain by its zealous courtship of evangelicals to gain their political support. ...

Part of the price has been to give the religious right a grip on party machinery that prevents many talented Republicans of different beliefs from even seeking office. At the same time, it has fostered the advancement of some whose most conspicuous qualification is a willingness to promote the approved theology.

The net effect has been a reduced and diluted talent pool or, in the popular phrase, a "dumbing down" of the party, as well as a diversion from its historic principles.

We urgently need a reorientation in which evangelicals continue to be warmly welcomed but are not invited to impose a theocratic hegemony.

Parker's point is dead-on. For instance, look at the selection of the unqualified Sarah Palin to rouse the evangelical vote (and scare away many independents). In Colorado, in many districts if you don't swear to abolish abortion you're sunk in GOP primaries.

How can evangelicals be "warmly welcomed" by a GOP with a renewed commitment to liberty? The evangelicals must agree to keep the church out of the state in exchange for keeping the state out of the church. Of course, it would also help if evangelicals would stop moving toward "green" socialism and the monstrous welfare state.

The GOP could emerge with a forceful liberty coalition, as I (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinion/l13repubs.html) outline. But it doesn't look like the part is prepared to do that, so I suspect it will continue to limp along.

Looter Nation

November 13, 2008

An (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/gm-now-wants-yo.html) article from Wired reveals what's wrong with our nation: special-interest warfare has gained speed, and we're slipping closer to the state where everyone tries to steal from everyone else.

Wired reports: "General Motors, teetering on the brink of insolvency, has taken the extraordinary step of calling on employees and dealers to personally urge lawmakers to approve another loan package that might keep the beleaguered automaker from going under."

And if some of us do not wish to "loan" General Motors our money? Tough: you'll do it, or else. Or else you'll be fined, prosecuted, and locked in a steel cage. Because, as a Democratic activist recently told me, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." Call it a civilized hold up.

During the New Deal, typically business leaders fell into line behind Roosevelt. In a system of massive wealth redistribution by politicians and capricious enforcement of arbitrary law, many business owners look for subsidies or fear retaliation.

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/sickening-display.html) noted, it is a sickening spectacle.

Looter State

November 13, 2008

We're becoming a Looter State to join the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/looter-nation.html) Looter Nation.

In the fantasy land of the central planners, corporate welfare—that is, taking money by force from those who earn it to give to politically-connected firms—somehow strengthens the economy.

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/13/ritter-unveils-12-million-economic-stimulus-plan/) reports, "Gov. Bill Ritter announced this morning a series of immediate economic development initiatives totaling $12 million to keep Colorado's economy pumping..."

Of course, the theory that robbing Peter to pay Paul helps the economy is complete nonsense. While Ritter will no doubt sing the joys of Paul's successes, he will utterly ignore the business activities of which he has deprived Peter.

Malkin's Conundrum

November 14, 2008

Earlier this evening (November 13) I attended the Independence Institute's annual banquet. It was a lovely and fun night. Jon Caldara was in top form. Unfortunately, it will probably take me a few days to get up the photographs and audio interviews, as I need to attend to a family matter. For now I want to address the most important issue of the evening: Michelle Malkin's endorsement of faith-based politics in the form of abortion bans.

Hers was an uncomfortable message to bring to the Independence Institute, an organization known for sticking to matters of economics and self-defense and avoiding divisive "social" issues like abortion. Malkin is wrong in principle. And if Colorado Republicans take her advice, they are doomed to perpetual failure.

What of those who, like me, endorse the separation of church and state and advocate a woman's right to get an abortion? Malkin said Republicans should "let them go their own way"—in other words, leave the Republican Party.

We have left.

The result is that (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) Bob Beauprez lost the governor's mansion, (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/schaffer-on-abortion.html) Bob Schaffer lost the U.S. Senate seat, Marilyn Musgrave lost another House seat, and candidates like (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/how-republican-libby-szabo-lost-my-vote.html) Libby Szabo lost the state legislature. (See my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado.html) pre and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) post election comments on the GOP's faith-based political disaster.)

Fittingly, the Denver Post published Paul's Hsieh's (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10976789) article on the matter the same day that Malkin offered her comments. Hsieh writes:

I want to let [Republicans] know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms—positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans' embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage. ...

[T]he government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous. ...

The Religious Right's goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.

As Ryan Sager (https://www.reason.com/news/show/129703.html) writes for Reason, this is a widespread trend (leaving aside the controversies over the "libertarian" label):

The Cato Institute has done excellent work over the last few years tracking the shift in the libertarian vote—the roughly 10 percent to 15 percent of the American public that can be categorized as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Based on an analysis of the American National Election Studies, Cato found that between 2000 and 2004, there was a substantial flight of libertarians away from the Republican Party and toward the Democrats. While libertarians preferred Bush by a margin of 52 points over Al Gore in 2000, that margin shrank to 21 points in 2004, when many libertarians—disaffected by the Iraq war, massive GOP spending increases, and the campaign against gay marriage—switched to John Kerry.

While it is true that faith-based politics is only one of the issues driving liberty voters away from the Republicans, it is also true that the faith-based politics of Bush and McCain is of a cloth with their big-government spending. Bush ran as a "compassionate" conservative—i.e., a religiously altruistic one—while McCain selected the evangelical economic lightweight Palin as he himself suspended his campaign in order to rubber-stamp Bush's $700 billion Great American Rip-Off.

Malkin made a couple of references to Ayn Rand, saying she recently moved to Colorado to get her own piece of Galt's Gulch and that she has "most virtuous" selfish reasons for wanting local conservatives to succeed. I am continually amazed by how many conservatives selectively read Rand—and understand hardly a word of what she wrote even as they invoke her works. Notably, Malkin did not quote what Rand had to say about abortion or faith-based politics generally.

Unlike Bush and McCain, Malkin sticks with liberty when talking about economic issues. She hammered McCain for supporting the bailout, pushing environmental controls, and lamenting the evils of profits.

Malkin was positively inspirational. She said the proper Republican strategy is "simple: we stand up for our principles." We don't rebrand our beliefs, "we defend them." "We lock and load our ideological ammunition." "We do not whine, we do not wheedle, we fight."

Malkin said Repubicans must oppose any new stimulus, must oppose new "windfall profit" taxes, must oppose federal loan guarantees. "If you get rid of the ability to fail," she said, "you get rid of the ability to succeed." Right on.

Republicans who endorsed the bailout suffered "ideological pollution."

But then, in an instant, the anti-liberty Malkin took the stage. She said Republicans should not "de-emphasize" or hide their "pro-life"—i.e., faith-based anti-abortion—stance. To do so also would be to suffer "ideological pollution." Republicans "need to stand up for life unapologetically," she said.

And those who do not share Malkin's desire to impose religious faith by force of law? "Let them go their own way."

However, as Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) explain, the faith-based opposition to abortion is not "pro-life," it is anti-life. It would sacrifice the lives of actual people to fertilized eggs. I do not advise Republicans to "de-emphasize" or soften their calls to outlaw abortion: I advise them to completely reject faith-based politics and defend the individual rights of actual people.

Malkin's conundrum is the one faced by the Republican Party generally: she tries to defend and violate liberty at the same time. Her stance is fundamentally untenable. It is no coincidence that the religious right is drifting away from matters of economic liberty and increasingly interested in welfare spending, environmental controls, and of course draconian social controls.

Malkin's treatment of abortion contrasted sharply with her comments on immigration. She admitted that there are "cleavages" in the Republican Party over immigration, but also things "we agree on." Oh, you mean that there are no "cleavages" over abortion? The facts (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/09/hank-brown-rallies-republican-majority.html) prove otherwise. Yet, for Malkin, on immigration Republicans can agree to disagree, while on abortion the nonsectarians must be shown the door. (As I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-iv-toward.html) argued, it remains possible for secular liberty voters to reform a coalition with those religious voters who endorse the separation of church and state.)

As Paul Hsieh reviews, Rush Limbaugh wants to purge the Republican Party of those who decline to toe the faith-based line. Malkin offers the same advice. She wants me to go my own way. So long as Republicans insist on imposing religious faith by force of law, I remain her obedient servant.

See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/independence-institute-2008-banquet.html) collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Comment: I don't think the argument for separation of church and state is the most effective in the case of abortion, because pro-lifers do not necessarily think it's a religious issue. I think your paper on amendment 48 does a good job explaining why a fertilized egg is not a person and how forced pregnancy is anti-life. They are staunchly pro-life because they think that any disrespect for life will lead to disrespect for life at other stages of development outside of the womb. Your paper effectively argues that a fertilized egg is not a person, but not a fetus. You have a different argument there: that it's dependent and therefore not an individual, even though it may be physically human.

Comment by Gideon: Interesting. Presently I'm still registered Republican though I didn't vote for any Republican during this last election. However, I've come to the conclusion that if the Republicans continue to put up these anti-abortion candidates I will register as an independent until a better party arrives on the scene. Perhaps the Republicans will ultimately go the way of the Whigs in the 19th century whom the Republicans replaced. Of course, the real challenge will be to form a principled and successful new party.

'Don't Tell Me About Philosophy'

November 14, 2008

I'm glad to see that Vincent Carroll seems to have recovered from his temporary bailout insanity and returned home to economic liberty. He (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/14/carroll-so-much-for-principle/) writes:

The "core mission" of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "is to fight for business and free enterprise." It is also "to advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity and responsibility."

These stirring words appear on the chamber's Web site. Sounds like a political philosophy, doesn't it?

"Don't tell me about philosophy," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the national chamber, during a visit to Denver this week. "If we let this thing go under, we are looking at millions and millions of unemployed people."

Donohue was explaining to his Denver audience why the chamber is so gung-ho about flushing tens of billions of federal dollars into the U.S. auto industry...

"Don't tell me about philosophy." That pragmatic, anti-principled sentiment perfectly reflects why we're in economic trouble to begin with. If more politicians and business leaders had paid attention to the right philosophy, they wouldn't have promoted the sorts of monetary manipulations, federal mandates and controls, and redistributionism that caused the crisis. And they wouldn't advocate the further destruction of economic liberty as the "solution."

Philosophy? (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_philosophy_who_needs_it) Who needs it?

A Gun-Show Loophole?

November 14, 2008

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10979303) reports:

A group of community activists has raised $1,000 to buy guns from owners in order to trim gun violence in Denver. ...

The group will pay $50 per gun at an anti-violence and gun-buyback rally scheduled for noon Dec. 6, at the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Denver City Park.

The guns will be turned over to the police, said Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Hahn.

"Anybody can bring an illegal gun in at any time. Any time that illegal weapons are taken off the street, we are pleased," she said. ...

The $1,000 is enough for 20 guns.

This is a great way to pay people for junked out, nonfunctional guns worth less than $50.

But Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Hahn muddles the issue with her reference to "illegal guns." What are these "illegal guns?" Please do tell. Guns can be used in illegal ways, but I'd really like to know which guns Hahn thinks are themselves "illegal" that will be purchased for $50. (Watch out: the disarmament rhetoric is already ramping up.)

But wait a minute... do these activists plan on meeting the requirements of Colorado's gun-show law (which I opposed)?

Colorado statute 12-26.1-106 states:

(3) "Gun show" means the entire premises provided for an event or function, including but not limited to parking areas for the event or function, that is sponsored to facilitate, in whole or in part, the purchase, sale, offer for sale, or collection of firearms at which:

(a) twenty-five or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange; or

(b) not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms.

(4) "Gun show promoter" means a person who organizes or operates a gun show.

(5) "Gun show vendor" means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm.

Clearly this activist group is a gun show under Colorado law.

The statutes continue:

12-26.1-101. Background checks at gun shows—penalty.

(1) Before a gun show vendor transfers or attempts to transfer a firearm at a gun show, he or she shall:

(a) require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., be conducted of the prospective transferee; and

(b) obtain approval of a transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S.

(2) A gun show promoter shall arrange for the services of one or more licensed gun dealers on the premises of the gun show to obtain the background checks required by this article.

(3) If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, no firearm shall be transferred unless a background check has been obtained by a licensed gun dealer.

(4) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

I'll be interested to see whether the activist group abides by this law—and whether the law will be selectively enforced.

Update: Of course, the activist group could have a police officer attend the event to take possession of the guns, and presumably the officer could easily pass a background check. Or the activist group could have one or two members pass a background check and collect the guns. However, note the language: "A gun show promoter shall arrange for the services of one or more licensed gun dealers on the premises of the gun show to obtain the background checks required by this article." So the background checks may not be performed prior to the gun show.

If police officers will attend the event in person, will they be on the city's clock, or will they volunteer or get paid by the activist group? It would be inappropriate for the police to spend tax dollars on such an overtly political cause.

Furthermore, the licensed gun dealer on hand must record the transfer of every single firearm, as provided by law:

12-26.1-102. Records—penalty.

(1) A licensed gun dealer who obtains a background check on a prospective transferee shall record the transfer, as provided in section 12-26-102, C.R.S., and retain the records, as provided in section 12-26-103, C.R.S., in the same manner as when conducting a sale, rental, or exchange at retail.

(2) Any individual who gives false information in connection with the making of such records commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

The gun show also must follow the posting requirement:

12-26.1-104. Posted notice—penalty.

(1) A gun show promoter shall post prominently a notice, in a form to be prescribed by the executive director of the department of public safety or his or her designee, setting forth the requirement for a background check as provided in this article.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

So, again, I'll be interested to see whether the activist group follows the law required of it as a gun show.

Focus Offers Obama Nightmare

November 21, 2008

Westword (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2008/10/focus_on_the_familys_nightmare.php) pointed to a (http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf) document from Focus on the Family titled, "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America." I figured I'd take a peek.

The document purports to describe events that could happen. "Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate," the letter predicts. How might this happen?

Obama could select three Supreme Court justices who are "far-Left, American Civil Liberties Union-oriented judges." (Apparently the ACLU is still a scare word in some circles.) What is the harm in that? Does Focus on the Family worry about eroded economic liberties? Eroded personal liberties? After all, the purported concern of the letter is freedom.

The answer is no:

The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court's stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual "marriage" was a "constitutional" right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex "marriage" violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The first thing to notice is that such a ruling would in no way restrict "our freedoms" in any way, unless by "freedom" Focus on the Family means the freedom for the majority to impose controls on the minority. Such a ruling would expand the freedoms of some. My freedom is in no way restricted if my gay friends get married. This hardly raises a blip on the Scarometer.

I am not much concerned whether gay couples go the route of "marriage" or "domestic partnership." But what is interesting is that this is the top concern of Focus on the Family, even though such a ruling would have no practical significance for the day-to-day lives of most Americans.

The Court might also further violate rights of contract and free association in the name of anti-discrimination. Obviously I'm against that. However, conservatives have hardly taken a consistent position on the matter.

Government-school training on the virtues of homosexuality? I doubt it. If it were a problem, the solution is to separate school and state. But, generally, evangelicals have been more interested in capturing tax-funded schools for their own purposes, not restoring liberty in education. Those who want school prayer and the tax-funded teaching of creationism can hardly whine when their opponents want to capture the same system for their own purposes.

"There are no more Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States." It's unclear to me why religious organizations should have the "freedom" to place children according to religious doctrine. Those organizations don't own the children.

Outlawing "offensive" speech from the Bible? Well, if the justices are ACLU types, we hardly need to worry about that. The irony of the evangelical movement whining about censorship is palpable. The evangelical movement poses the much more dangerous threat to free speech.

Controls on doctors? Again with the hypocrisy. Hello! Focus on the Family wants to throw doctors in prison—or worse—for performing abortions. I share the concern about controls on association and contract. But the religious right hardly offers a better alternative than the left.

Focus on the Family's concern with fertility treatments is especially laughable. Remember that Focus praised Amendment 48, which would outlaw most fertility treatments because they involve the destruction of fertilized eggs.

Focus on the Family then tries to argue that outlawing abortion and censoring pornography is somehow consistent with freedom. Notice that, in the same document, the same organization laments censorship of religious speech even as it advocates censorship on religious grounds.

For demographic reasons—evangelicals tend to be more rural and suburban—the religious right sides with gun ownership. Well, that's great. But in the general context of faith-based politics, such a right is practically meaningless, as the greatest threat to our liberty is the government.

Focus on the Family worries about Obama's foreign policy and health policy. But of course George W. Bush, the evangelical president, was a complete disaster on both fronts. (Bush did allow Health Savings Accounts, but at the cost of a massive expansion of health entitlements.)

The letter's closing paragraph states, "I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and though I don't know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately be accomplished." In other words, all of this concern expressed by Focus on the Family about freedom is merely a front. The organization doesn't fundamentally care about freedom; it cares about seeing God's alleged will imposed on earth.

Mortgage Fraud in Colorado

November 21, 2008

As I've been arguing, "the cause" of the mortgage meltdown is a combination of bad federal policies, including easy money from the Fed, federal lending mandates, and implicit bailout promises.

But, as Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/21/carroll-a-mortgaged-future/) points out, fraud also played a role:

According to a settlement reached between [Paul Anthony] Baker and [Attorney General John] Suthers' office, Encore Lending was basically an engine of fraud. For example:

* "Baker admits that he deposited money into borrowers' bank accounts—or otherwise provided funds to borrowers—in order to enable borrowers to have sufficient assets to qualify for a loan."

* "Baker also admits that, regardless of the borrower's actual income, he stated a borrower's income . . . as whatever the borrower's income needed to be to reach the necessary debt-to-income ratio" to qualify for a desired loan.

* Baker allegedly engaged in other fraudulent practices, too, although he doesn't admit to them in the settlement. But as the settlement notes, the attorney general contends that Baker falsified pay stubs and W-2 forms to submit to mortgage lenders and even assisted unemployed borrowers in finding jobs in an effort to qualify them for loans.

A (http://www.ago.state.co.us/press_detail.cfmpressID=928.html) media release from Suthers's office summarizes that case and others as well.

True, such fraud was encouraged by federal lending pressures. Yet, at least in this case, fraud took on a life of its own and exacerbated the mortgage problem.

The government plays a legitimate and essential role in rooting out fraud. That is one of the conditions that makes possible a free market. And, in this case, judging from Carroll's account, Suthers as a government official is doing the right thing.

Caldara Reviews Initiatives, Buckley

November 22, 2008

In the recent election, Colorado's Amendment 49, which I supported, lost. It would have prevented government from withholding a portion of the income only of government employees for transfer to unions. Meanwhile, Amendment 54, which I opposed, won. Unless it is overturned in court, it will prohibit certain government contractors from making certain campaign contributions, which I regard as a violation of free speech. I was surprised by this outcome, so I asked Jon Caldara about it at the November 13 Independence Institute banquet. (Caldara heads the Institute.) We also discussed Christopher Buckley, mill levies, and campaign finance laws. Following is a lightly redacted transcript of our discussion.

Jon: By the way, congratulations on ten years of the Colorado Freedom Report.

Ari: ...and congratulations to you for a decade at the II. ... So I was disappointed that 49 lost. We have some idea of why that lost. Why do you think 54 won and that lost?

Jon: For two reasons, and two reasons only. One, in Colorado, people who write the proposals don't write the title language, the Title Board does. They had superb, wonderful Title Board language. 49 had awful language, and we have no control over that. Secondly, they had two million dollars behind them, which was enough to get the word out. 49 had [practically] nothing.

Ari: Well, thanks for doing that. Is there going to be any follow-up effort to do that statutorily, through another initiative...

Jon: I would like to, but of course this legislature is bought and sold by the unions, these are the same ones who wanted to change the Labor Peace Act... So it's not going to happen statutorily.

Ari: ...so there might be a follow-up, but there's no specific plan. ... So here's my next question. Christopher Buckley. What happened there?

Jon: It didn't work out. But he'll be back. Christopher is likely going to come back and join us for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms party. Since he did such a great job with Thank You for Smoking and is such a humorist we thought that might be a better fit.

Ari: The word around the campfire is that you dumped him when he endorsed Obama.

Jon: I wasn't happy when he endorsed Obama, but we found I think a more appropriate place to use him at an II event.

Ari: What else [should we look for] over the coming year?

Jon: I think we ought to keep an eye on the mill levy freeze [See Benjamin DeGrow's (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1374) article] lawsuit, because, my guess is that in two to three weeks we will have a ruling from the Supreme Court to see if our lower court ruling stands or not.

Ari: Another thing you're in court over is the campaign finance alleged violations. Where is that?

Jon: In fifteen days from now we'll find out... Briefly, the campaign against 47, the right to work, decided to also campaign against our initiative, but did not disclose so on the Secretary of State's disclosure forms. That's a blatant violation of election law, and I'm not a big fan of election law, but if it's there you need to follow it.

Ari: I was actually thinking of the previous thing... Aren't you still involved with the Referendum C case?

Jon: No, we won that handily... We were completely exonerated—of course, three days after the election was over.

Ari: Well that is an interesting tension. Some people on the right are simultaneously using and complaining about the campaign finance laws. Where should we be headed about that as far as free speech is concerned?

Jon: As a free speech issue, we should change Amendment 27, which is now Article 28 of the state constitution, and allow free speech. If we can't do that, we should make sure that the campaign finance laws aren't just a slam dunk for unions and liberal special interests, but that other groups can use them to their advantage as well.

Ari: In other words, they're not selectively enforced, so long as they are enforced.

Jon: Absolutely... They made the rules, we can still win.

See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/independence-institute-2008-banquet.html) collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Independence Institute 2008 Banquet: Collected Links

November 22, 2008

Following is a complete list of my postings on the Independence Institute's 2008 Founder's Night Banquet, held November 13 in Denver.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/malkins-conundrum.html) Malkin's Conundrum
Michelle Malkin rightly criticizes Republicans for violating economic liberty, yet she insists that Republicans pursue the faith-based politics of abortion bans.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/caldara-reviews-initiatives-buckley.html) Caldara Reviews Initiatives, Buckley
Jon Caldara discusses Amendments 49 and 54, Christopher Buckley, mill levies, and campaign finance laws.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/rosen-gop-message-out-of-fashion.html) Rosen: GOP Message Out of Fashion
Mike Rosen claims Republicans "won't win until the American people are ready to hear our message," but the real problem is that the Republicans offer the wrong message.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/independence-institute-banquet-photos.html) Independence Institute Banquet Photos

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/penn-pfiffner-celebrates-defeat-of-59.html) Penn Pfiffner Celebrates Defeat of 59

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/kopel-talks-guns-taiwan.html) Kopel Talks Guns, Taiwan
Dave Kopel discusses guns, Taiwan, and FreeColorado.com. The mp3 file is linked.

ID or Multiverse?

November 24, 2008

Dinesh D'Souza wants to have his proof and eat it, too. He (http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/11/24/when_science_points_to_god) writes:

If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator." The article begins by noting "an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life."

Science thus far has provided no good explanation for this. So, D'Souza concludes, God exists. But this is a completely unjustifiable move. The fact that we don't know something doesn't mean we can just make stuff up. Throughout much of human history, science could not explain lightning, weather, and the development of life. Before science could provide such answers, plenty of people jumped to God (or some supernatural force) as the explanation.

Things in the universe have identity, they act according to their nature, and so it is not remotely shocking that the universe is in some fundamental sense orderly. That fact that we do not yet understand aspects of this order does not imply the existence of God.

Unfortunately, as D'Souza notes, some physicists, detached from the inductive method, have also turned to making stuff up:

[M]many physicists are exploring an alternative possibility: multiple universes. This is summed up as follows: "Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse." Folger says that "short of invoking a benevolent creator" this is the best that modern science can do. For contemporary physicists, he writes, this "may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation" for our fine-tuned universe.

The appeal of multiple universes—perhaps even an infinity of universes—is that when there are billions and billions of possibilities, then even very unlikely outcomes are going to be realized somewhere. Consequently if there was an infinite number of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point. What at first glance seems like incredible coincidence can be explained as the result of a mathematical inevitability.

I just read the same idea last night in Neal Stephenson's new novel Anathem. Yet, as D'Souza points out, "The only difficulty, as Folger makes clear, is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any universes other than our own."

The only difficulty for D'Souza is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, either.

Anathem Worth the Digging

November 24, 2008

About a hundred pages into (http://www.nealstephenson.com/) Neal Stephenson's new novel Anathem, I didn't think I'd be able to make my way through it. In addition to being overlong (do I really need such a detailed knowledge of a building's staircases?), the book requires the reader to memorize—or at least recognize—many terms unique to the fictitious world and an entire alternative history. The book contains a timeline in the front and a glossary in the back.

Now that I'm about a third of the way through the book (past page 300), I'm finding the lengthy prologue to have been worth it. Stephenson has crafted an action mystery grounded in philosophical thought.

Notably, Stephenson, or at least his protagonist, is a Platonist. I knew this even before starting the book, because I happened to note in the back (page 937) an acknowledgment of "a philosophical lineage that can be traced from Thales through Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Godel, and Husserl." That's not exactly a line that typically gets me excited, at least in a positive way. I don't know yet quite where Stephenson is going with all this, but it makes for interesting reading. Themes of Leibniz are especially well integrated into the story.

A word of caution: a few years ago, I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/10/system.html) heard Stephenson talk about a previous book, and I recall him saying something to the effect that he wrote to get his mind into a particular sort of worldview. So it may not be obvious where Stephenson stops and his characters begin. That said, Stephenson's interests are largely revealed by what he chooses to write about.

The science-fiction setup is straightforward, but unfortunately I cannot mention what it is without ruining the mystery of the first few hundred pages. I will note merely that this is a book that requires a bit of patience.

Comment by Kevin: I've actually just started Anathem in audio book format. I'll have to say that while I am starting to enjoy the storyline unless you're a veteran audio book reader who can cope with uncertainty and confusion and able to quickly adopt new terms I'd stay away from the audio format. It's funny I was just thinking this morning on the drive to work that I would probably enjoy this much better in dead tree form. Of course I would never make the time to read it rather than listen.

Make Gun Training a Priority

November 24, 2008

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081124/OPINION/811239983/1062/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=If%20you%20buy%20a%20gun%2C%20make%20training%20a%20priority) publshed on November 24, 2008, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

If you buy a gun, make training a priority

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The media have reported a spike in the sale of firearms. The number of people signing up for classes to qualify for concealed carry also has increased. Firearms instructors have seen more interest since 9/11. Local instructors also have seen the fraction of women in class rise from a quarter to half.

Your elder author Linn serves as an instructor for the National Rifle Association's Basis Pistol and Personal Protection classes. In a recent class, a student asked what the difference is between NRA classes and ones lasting only three or four hours. Linn offered to take up the question at the end of class. We'll start to answer it here.

Before carrying a gun for defensive purposes, one must answer a crucial question: Am I prepared the take the life of another human being to save my own life or the life of a family member? Do my religious and philosophical beliefs allow me to potentially take a life in self defense? Am I prepared to accept or tolerate the judgment of my family, friends, and neighbors if I must defend myself with lethal force?

Barring cases of immediate threats, one should view the carrying of a concealed weapon as a full-time commitment. Chances are that if you carry a gun, you'll never need to pull it from the holster in an emergency. Still, we don't put on the seatbelt every time we get in the car because we expect to get in a crash. There's no need to put on your seatbelt after the crash, and there's no opportunity to go home and retrieve your firearm once you find yourself in a life-or-death situation.

Before Colorado liberalized the concealed carry laws in 2003, some got a permit as the local authorities allowed. Others carried illegally under the notion that it's better to be tried by twelve than buried by six.

The need for a statewide concealed carry law arose from the language of Colorado's constitution, Article II, Section 13, regarding the right to bear arms. The text states, "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

The common perception at the time, we are told, was that only prostitutes and gamblers carried guns concealed, while real men carried guns openly on their hips. Yet there is an important tactical advantage to carrying a gun concealed. If you are the only one in a group carrying a visible firearm, any criminal intent on committing mayhem will make you his first target.

The Colorado Constitution contains some of the strongest language in the nation for self-defense with a gun, though the last phrase puts concealed carry in the hands of the legislature.

The law offers a remedy for treating somebody as a criminal for putting on a jacket that happens to hide a gun on the hip. True, some counties unnecessarily place CCW holders on the same list as rapists and murderers. An advantage of the Colorado law is that 29 states have adopted similar laws granting reciprocity.

What is training for concealed carry and where does one receive it? The NRA describes training as an activity that produces a change in knowledge, skill, and attitude. Linn encourages instructors to view this concept as a circle: more knowledge encourages one to seek out more skills, which in turn encourage an attitude of seeking out more knowledge.

Grand Valley Training Club has faithfully adhered to the NRA training program for students and instructors. All of the instructors volunteer their time. The fee for the 18-hour-plus course is $75.00. Most equivalent courses in Denver run from $250 to $350 per person.

The fee includes three hours of legal review, usually taught by Palisade Police Chief Carroll Quarles or Sheriff's Investigator Beverly Jarrell. District Attorney Pete Hautzinger and Chief Deputy District Attorney Dan Rubinstein also have conducted this portion of the class. As one student said, "The law portion of the class is well worth the price of the ticket."

One of the volunteer instructors, a retired law enforcement officer and explosives expert, worries that, without adequate training, some with concealed-carry permits may lapse in safe, effective practices.

After the recent class that Linn helped conduct, the student answered his own question: "There is no way a three or four hour class can give what is required."

Alon Stivi, who has conducted advanced training classes in the area for police and civilians (see DirectMeasures.com) states, "Training is not a game! A serious gap exists between the training available on the market and what actually works in the real world. In a world of rising terrorism and violence, there is only one way of being prepared: Being informed."

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

A Note from the War Economy

November 25, 2008

Recently I looked through some letters that my great-grandmother, Harriett Brown, wrote to my grandfather, Theo Eversol. Included in these documents is a "Basic Mileage Ration" card from the "United States of America Office of Price Administration." The card is dated November 17, 1942, and it lists Brown and her car, a 1936 Plymouth.

Here are the instructions:

How to Use Your Mileage Ration Book

This book has 4 pages of 8 coupons each. Each coupon is numbered and is good only as follows: No. 3 coupons from Nov. 22, 1942, through Jan. 21, 1943 [etc.]...

Each coupon is good for ONE "A" UNIT of gasoline. The number of gallons which each coupon gives you the right to buy will depend upon the demands of the war program; therefore, the value of the unit may be changed. Any change in value will be publicly announced by the OPA.

Do not loosen or tear coupons from the book. Detached coupons must not be honored by the dealer. When buying gasoline, hand the book to the dealer to remove coupons. ... The dealer is permitted to deliver gasoline only into the tank of the vehicle described on the front cover of this book, unless bulk transfer has been authorized by the War Price and Rationing Board.

WARNING

1. Persons who do not observe the rationing rules and regulations of the Office of Price Administration may be punished by as much as 10 YEARS IMPRISONMENT or $10,000 FINE, OR BOTH, and are subject to such penalties as may be prescribed by law.

2. Gasoline obtained by use of this book must not be taken out of the fuel tank of the vehicle described on the front cover.

Of course this was a pretty stupid way to go about things. The program ensured that gasoline available for civilians would not go to its most valued uses. But FDR was all about centralized control of the economy, which he practiced before and during the war, regardless of the harm it caused.

Here's what my great-grandmother wrote about gas and prices in a letter dated December 15, 1942:

Lots of the filling stations have closed since gas rationing went in. You know those packages of raisins we used to get. Well they are 55 cents now. butter 52, milk 11, eggs 42, so you see things are going up, quite a difference since you left [for the war].

One of the things the war accomplished was to dramatically inflate the money supply, which inflated the economy out of the wage and price controls of Hoover and FDR. Today, as the federal government looks to spend trillions on bailouts and make-work projects, I wonder whether the pending inflation is an intended result, or if it is merely a biproduct of the subsidies for politically-correct production and the (disgusting) special-interest handouts.

Outsourced

November 25, 2008

Outsourced surprised me with its warm humor and thoughtful treatment of culture clashes. The premise is that an American is sent to India to train his replacement. The job is "selling kitsch to rednecks" over the phone.

The inevitable romance seems contrived, but I quite like the actors. More compelling are the friendships the American forms with his new coworkers (including his love interest).

I also like the film for some of its cultural themes: cultures have much to offer each other, we do well to pick up the finer aspects of other cultures, and outsourcing brings its benefits as well as its difficulties.

The film looks mostly at the brighter side of India, which is indeed heartening as economic opportunity makes headway. The film barely touches on the continuing problems of India, but, hey, it's a romantic comedy.

And the film mostly was filmed in India by local crews, so the film manifests its own theme. Apparently the big difference is that Bollywood typically films first, dubs later, while this American project filmed with the sound, creating a few problems. (Watch the documentary material when you rent it.)

I had really been looking forward to Wall-E, which I found to be a disappointment with its ridiculous premise. I was grateful that in the same week I found the truly enjoyable film Outsourced.

Rosen: GOP Message Out of Fashion

November 25, 2008

At the Independence Institute's banquet November 13, Mike Rosen offered his thoughts on why the Republican Party got trounced. While he provided useful historical perspective, he didn't begin to explain what went wrong with the Republican Party.

While Rosen essentially blamed GOP losses on the spirit of the era, in fact the GOP has actively alienated a variety of voting blocks, and that goes a lot further in explaining why the GOP is now in disarray. To summarize (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-iv-toward.html) my case, the GOP alienated the free-market wing, nonsectarians, most women of reproductive age, immigrants, homosexuals (and by extension most younger voters), and civil libertarians.

Rosen blamed the mortgage crisis on the "perfidy of some capitalists" as well as the ill effects of certain government controls. This is "not in indictment of capitalism, [but] an indictment of human nature." But there is nothing inherent in "human nature" that makes people turn to central economic controls; that's a result of political philosophy. In general, Rosen avoided discussions of the importance of ideas and focused on the forced of history.

Rosen said, "I understand the limitation of markets, the imperfection of markets." This comment contained two confusions. First, the "market" is merely the combination of individual actors. People can and do make mistakes. The "market" is largely the process by which people respond to and correct mistakes, such as by a businesses going bankrupt. Second, Rosen fails to distinguish between the free market and the government controls that caused the crisis (as well as the private fraud that contributed to it).

"Capitalism and rugged individualism are marginally out of [favor] right now," Rosen continued. Perhaps, but it doesn't help that the Republican Party generally has done everything in its power to foster that trend. So it's not as though people are rejecting the GOP because it stands for capitalism; many rejected the GOP because it has rejected capitalism.

The Libertarian Party did poorly, Rosen argued, because its notions of "rugged individualism and independence" are "too rigorous." But this doesn't begin to explain the failure of the LP. This year the party was fractured, and Ron Paul endorsed another candidate. More importantly, the LP typically stands against government, not for liberty, so the party understandably frightens away many voters. (Of course our winner-take-all system favors two parties.)

Rosen's advice for Republicans is to "return to their Reaganite roots... We don't change our beliefs, but we have to better communicate those beliefs." It would help if the GOP had some decent beliefs to communicate. The GOP is currently the party of the religious right. The GOP does not need to better communicate those beliefs, it needs to jettison them completely. Furthermore, the GOP needs to jettison the massive-government "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush as well as the nationalistic, anti-liberty fervor of John McCain. Let us not forget, ever, that John McCain is an enemy of free speech, and as such he richly deserved to lose.

Rosen said Republicans "won't win until the American people are ready to hear our message." No. The Republican Party won't win until it is ready to offer the American people a message of liberty.

See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/independence-institute-2008-banquet.html) collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Nonbelievers Proof of God?

November 26, 2008

Christians, it seems, can use any fact whatsoever to "prove" the existence of God. In a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/26/scriptures-foretell-a-falling-away-from-faith/) letter to the Rocky Mountain News, Brian Stuckey argues that the existence of people who don't believe in God proves that God exists, as disbelief was "foretold in the Holy Scriptures." What a great argument! It is essentially in the form, "You disagree with me; therefore, I'm correct."

Stuckey claims:

It is true that many Americans are "shifting away" from organized religion. Many mainline churches have turned away from the traditional teachings of the church. Polls indicate that religious affiliation dropped from 90 percent in 1990 to 81 percent in 2001.

I wish he would have indicated which polls he's talking about. However, polls I've seen (see, for instance, Bowling Alone) indicate a growth in the more hard-core evangelical lines, and that is the more significant trend.

Paul was a master of the ad hominem, as Stuckey quotes:

As St. Paul wrote, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves . . . Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:1-7).

Again, "You disagree with me; therefore, I'm correct."

Union Insanity

November 26, 2008

The following (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/11/21/automakers-ask-bailout-paying-workers-sit/) story from Fox offers just one example of the high cost of legalized union force:

Thousands of laid-off auto workers get paid $31 an hour to sit around and do nothing all year under a controversial program that could continue even if American taxpayers bail out the American auto industry.

The program, called "Jobs Banks," has been around for 24 years... thanks to a deal struck in 1984 between the United Auto Workers and the Big Three carmakers. ... But if the automakers go bankrupt, some analysts say, they may be able to eliminate the program, which would abruptly eliminate benefits to the workers in it. ... Hoping to avoid bankruptcy and secure federal loans, carmakers and the UAW are considering eliminating the program anyway.

It is clear that wage controls, including legislation under Hoover and FDR granting unions legal uses of force, prevented wages from adjusting to deflation, kept unemployment high, and worsened the Great Depression. American businesses, consumers, and other workers continue to pay the price for these unjust laws.

Most Americans Fail Civics

November 26, 2008

Thanks to an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/25/murdock-americans-woefully-ignorant-their-heritage/) article by Deroy Murdock, I became aware of a civics test and poll from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The group's (ttp://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/content/our_fading_heritage_11-20-08.pdf) release notes:

[L]ess than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government. And only 21 percent know the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" comes from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which president elect Barack Obama cited in his acceptance speech on Election night. ...

30 percent of elected officials do not know that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence; and 20 percent falsely believe that the Electoral College "was established to supervise the first presidential debates"

Almost 40 percent of all respondents falsely believe the president has the power to declare war

40 percent of those with a bachelor's degree do not know business profit equals revenue minus expenses

Only 54 percent with a bachelor's degree correctly define free enterprise as a system in which individuals create, exchange and control goods and resources

20.7 percent of Americans falsely believe that the Federal Reserve can increase or decrease government spending

It's important to note that the (http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx) questions are multiple choice, which makes them a lot easier to answer. Still, I did have to look up a few.

Some of the questions are more meaningful than others. For example, the phrase about "for the people" logically would fit in a variety of documents. And, today, the president does have the de facto "power to declare war," even if war is called by some other name in such cases and the Constitution lists no such power. Most of the questions avoid such problems, and it's a pretty interesting test. You can compare your results with the (http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/additional_finding.html) averages.

Notice that, for most questions, elected officials performed worse than the general populace. Elected officials did a bit better on the question about public goods—I suppose because they tend to use the public-goods argument as a pretext to increase government spending for projects that are not in fact public goods.

Comment by Patrick Sperry: While this sad state of affairs is astounding I am not at all surprised by it. My oldest daughter graduated from Arvada West with a very good GPA. Still, I asked her questions that used to be on the "Constitution Test" that had to be passed to get beyond the eighth grade in California, no exceptions. She failed miserably. Many of those same questions were asked on this questionnaire. These were college graduates...? Please note that eighth graders HAD to pass the test...

Comment: I got 32/33 without looking anything up and don't even have a college degree (on the last question, I equated government debt with current deficit (I assumed there was no accumulated deficit, which is actually independent of current deficit or its absence, ignoring interest on the debt and debt repayment, if any) and thought they were trying to trick me by saying taxes and spending per person meant equal distribution of taxes and spending per person, but of course their statement is true if simple average is all that is meant). Note the Freedom of (exercise of) Religion in the Bill of Rights, First Amendment. --from a third-party candidate for University of Colorado Regent in the past

Dobson Insists on Faith-Based Politics

November 27, 2008

James Dobson of Focus on the Family makes two main argument in a recent (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008766.cfm) posting that was brought to my attention by 5280 magazine. First, the religious right didn't really lose in the last election, and second, the religious right should continue to make explicitly religious arguments to advance their faith-based politics.

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) pointed out, the religious right got trounced in Colorado. Voters rejected McCain and his evangelical running mate, picked a United States Senator who penned a particularly eloquent defense of the separation of church and state, ousted a House member known for her faith-based views, rejected an anti-abortion candidate for state senate, and defeated the "personhood" initiative (which Dobson endorsed) (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/amendment/) by 73 to 27 percent. The religious right hardly could have taken a worse beating.

To "refute" this obvious fact, Dobson points out that voters in "California, Florida and Arizona voted to define marriage in their constitutions as the union of one man and one woman..." But that hardly proves Dobson's point. Defining marriage as heterosexual is hardly the same thing as endorsing the religious right's vicious anti-homosexual agenda. It is common to want to restrict "marriage" to heterosexual couples and still confer full legal rights to homosexual couples. In this case, many voters side with the religious right by coincidence.

Dobson simply ignores all of the other electoral outcomes.

But here is the more substantive point: Dobson calls on Christians to attempt to enforce their distinctly religious views through politics. Dobson rejects Barack Obama's stance that political policies must be based on "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." Dobson calls on Christians to reject the "invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs."

And what are Dobson's priorities? "We will continue to stand up for the sanctity of human life, the sacredness of marriage and the right to have a say in the principles that will continue to guide this nation founded on biblical principles."

Banning abortion is his first priority; discriminating against homosexuals is his second. (No serious person protests Dobson's right of free speech; that's hardly the issue.) And Dobson frankly admits that both these causes are particularly religious in nature. With an agenda like that, it's no wonder that most Americans (particularly in the Interior West) have rejected the faith-based politics of Dobson and the Republican Party.

Independence Institute Banquet Photos

November 28, 2008

The (http://www.i2i.org/) Independence Institute held its annual banquet on November 13. Here are a few photos from the event.

Brian Schwartz runs the Independence Institute's (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) "Patient Power" blog.

State Senator Shawn Mitchell just won reelection. Congratulations!

Dominic Dezzutti, Mike Muel, and Joe Weaver.

Wesley Dickinson of the (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) People's Press Collective.

Mike Coffman won the Congressional seat that Tom Tancredo is leaving.

John Andrews of (http://www.backboneamerica.net/) Backbone America founded the Independence Institute in 1985.

Jon Caldara, who celebrated his tenth year at the Independence Institute, chats with Weld County Sheriff John Cooke.

Mike Rosen discussed Republican politics. (I respond (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/rosen-gop-message-out-of-fashion.html) here.)

Fred Holden, author of Total Power of One in America, received the 2008 Bern Bickel Award.

Seeme Hasan received the 2008 David S. D'Evelyn Award. She serves as chair of the (http://www.hasanfamilyfoundation.com/) Hasan Family Foundation.

(http://michellemalkin.com/) Michelle Malkin offered the keynote address. (I respond (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/malkins-conundrum.html) here.)

See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/independence-institute-2008-banquet.html) collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Penn Pfiffner Celebrates Defeat of 59

December 1, 2008

I caught up with Penn Pfiffner at the November 13 Independence Institute banquet. Pfiffner led the charge against Amendment 59. Following is a slightly redacted transcript of my conversation with him.

Ari: Congratulations on the defeat of Amendment 59, the net tax hike that would have debruced the state. I was happily stunned that that lost. How did that happen?

Penn: What we can say about the group that put Strike a Better Balance together: our job really turned out to be notifying the citizens what the real nature of the measure was. Because the proponents had made it seem like this was about another small and unimportant stream of income for education, and almost like it was an afterthought. And the title, and everything else, is to mislead you into thinking that this wasn't about taxes, that this was about education funding. So what it turned out that we needed to do was to inform the Colorado citizens of the true nature of it, that it really was this massive, what could have been the largest tax hike in Colorado history. And then once the citizens recognized that, then as you saw, they turned down every new tax measure. This was an easy one to turn down just because, not only did it sit on the back of the citizens, in terms of the tax burden, but it also took away from them their ability to control the government, to cap the government. At this point—we made this point in the campaign—we forced the government to come to us with specifics. "This is what we want to do, it's a program and it's going to cost this much." If 59 had passed, they could have ignored the citizens, and just had a blank check.

Ari: What does this say about the state of the electorate, when Coloradans defeated the big tax hikes, but voted for people who are fairly friendly toward tax-and-spend policies?

Penn: I can't be sure why we saw two such disparate outcomes, that people would vote for big tax-and-spenders, and a whole panoply of them, it's not just one or two—it's control at Wasthington, it's control here at the state level—and yet they'll turn down tax hikes. A large part of it, I think, is fear of the ridiculous activities that are going on in Washington in terms of bailouts and getting rid of what should be a fine bright line between government and private business, instead have the government take over the businesses. I think part of it was tremendous fear about how deep a recession we might be going into and how bad it's going to get, and what it will mean to their family's budgets, if the taxes had gone through. But I also think it was some amount of rejection of the old Washington regime of George Bush. And I think some people voted without having a real foundation for knowing what this "change" will mean, and not recognizing that the real change is going to be antithetical to furthering liberty and furthering individual responsibility.

Ari: Offhand, do you know what the spending disparity was on the 59 campaign, pro versus against?

Penn: More than 200 to 1. We came up with less than $10,000. We were joined by the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, and I sit on the board, so there's some overlap. But we put out $5,000, maybe $6,000 for radio ads for Strike a Better Balance, CUT put out about $5,000 for radio ads, and the other side had about $2 million.

Ari: Well, that's a stunning victory for liberty, so thanks for the work on that, and for that surprising victory.

Penn: Yes, it was surprising, and we can celebrate a little bright spot.

See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/independence-institute-2008-banquet.html) collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

U.S. a Christian Nation, Hillman Asserts

December 2, 2008

Following the Republican defeat in Colorado and across the nation, Mark Hillman, a leading Republican voice in Colorado, took Thanksgiving as an opportunity to remind his party of its Christian allegiance, despite the fact that the party's faith-based politics has been its (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) downfall.

Hillman notes that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, yet he neglects to mention that the phrase appears in the letters of Jefferson, who might be taken as an authority on the nation's founding.

Hillman argues that government is not and ought not be "insulated from faith" and that that various founders and political leaders referenced God and praised Christianity. But that's hardly the same thing as proving that America was founded on Christian principles. Christianity gave the world centuries of religious oppression. It took the Enlightenment and its commitment to human reason to give us 1776 and the ensuing economic prosperity. Whether the the "Creator" of the Declaration is taken to be some distant God or the natural order, our nature as human beings grants us "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Liberty, equality and freedom have certain biblical roots," Hillman proclaims—without offering a shred of evidence. Yet for every biblical passage that Hillman might reference endorsing such principles, I can point to ten antithetical to liberty. (Diana Hsieh recently (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2008/12/christian-law-hell-on-earth.shtml) cited a few examples.)

Hillman offers the following false contrast:

Despite our collective and individual shortcomings, Americans have prospered like no other people, but we are foolishly misguided if we believe that our freedom and longevity is the result of mere chance or that it can persevere without demanding sacrifice, humility and resolve from each of us.

It is obviously true that our freedom and longevity have nothing to do with chance. Instead, they owe their debt to a philosophy of reason and individual rights. If we wish to preserve our heritage of liberty, we must look to reality, not ancient mythologies of supernaturalism and their modern interpreters.

Comment by Neil Parille: As I understand it, Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was drafted. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where he used the phrase "separation of church and state," he never said that Connecticut didn't have the right to have a state church (which it had until 1819 or so). When Jefferson was governor of Virginia he did advocate some state support of religion. Certainly the views of Jefferson are given some deference, but what about Connecticut's own Roger Sherman, the only man to sign all four of the US's key founding documents (the Articles of Association, the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution)? If you go to New Haven you can see his gravestone, in which his profession of Christianity is mentioned. He was a church elder and a supporter of CT's established church. His political ideas came from Reformed theology. (There is a fascinating article about him called Reformed Theology and the American Founding: The Case of Roger Sherman by Mark David Hall available on the web.) The idea that America was founded as a "Christian nation" is untrue, but the claim that the founders were all secularists who opposed religious influence in politics or government support of religion is also untrue. This is one the few cases where the old cliche about the truth being somewhere in the middle is probably correct.

Comment: Why would Jefferson be an authority when he did not participate in the Constitutional debates? Conversely, Washington spoke at length about our nation's Christian roots (as Joe Smith and Tara Ross have documented in their fine book, Under God). Even atheists like Thomas Payne acknowledged that accountability to a Higher Power is essential in a people who wish to govern themselves. Christianity shares a key flaw with libertarianism, Randism, etc.—that is, its adherents are all human and subject to human flaws and frailties. It then follows that many Christian leaders over the centuries have committed shameful acts under the banner of Christ, but likewise Christianity has inspired many—abolitionists, for example—to courageous acts, as well.

Celebrate Repeal of Prohibition

December 2, 2008

(http://www.rockbottom.com/) Rock Bottom Brewery pointed out in an e-mail that this Friday, December 5, marks the 75th anniversary of the repeal of prohibition. We can celebrate the repeal of this ignoble experiment, even as we strive to overcome its evil step-children of controls on alcohol, drugs, and guns.

Rock Bottom announces:

[J]oin us for a celebratory toast to the 75th Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition and cheer like it's 1933!

... In 1933, after too many days and weeks of empty pints (4708 days too many), there was finally an end to the drought and we were again OK to join our friends, raise a glass, and cheer a historic day in our history!

Here's to another 75 years of good times and great beer!

I'll drink to that.

Kopel Talks Guns, Taiwan

December 3, 2008

Dave Kopel discussed guns, Taiwan, and FreeColorado.com at the Independence Institute banquet November 13. Listen to the (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2008/iikopel.mp3) mp3 recording of the interview. A partial transcript follows.

Ari: We're with Dave Kopel. First of all, congratulations on the Supreme Court gun case.

Dave: Thank you very much.

Ari: I know you did a lot of work on that and a lot of work over many years doing research. Where's this headed? Do you think the federal Dems will take the lead of Colorado Dems and kind of play hands off on the gun issue, or are you worried about what the federal Dems are going to do on that? I know you've written about Obama's anti-gun stances, but are they really going to do anything or are they going to play hands-off?

Dave: I think even while we fear the worst, we can hope for the best. It's very unlikely that anti-Second Amendment stuff is going to be the top of the Obama and Democratic Congressional agenda early in 2009, because the economic issues are so much larger right now. But Obama is in his heart probably the most extreme anti-gun president we've ever had. So my guess would be, he'll do like John Howard did in Australia, and various administrations did in the United Kingdom, which is have a very fierce anti-gun agenda ready to go as soon as there's a terrorist attack or some other infamous crime, and they sense a brief window of public panic when they can try to push something through without the time for reflection.

Ari: Are there already or do you know of upcoming legal challenges based on the Supreme Court's decision and ruling, which was fairly limited in its application?

Dave: There are a variety of cases going forward. The most important issue is going to be whether the Second Amendment is a limit only on the federal government, or like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights it also limits state and local governments. There have been challenges to the handgun ban in Chicago, challenges to the ban on gun possession in San Francisco's public housing authority, and a challenge to a local ban on gun shows in Southern California. And any of those cases could be the one which I hope will go the Supreme Court. And while we have a good Supreme Court—before Obama ruins it—I'd like to see a case get up there and have the incorporation issue decided. That is, whether the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby made applicable to the state and local governments.

Ari: Are you going to continue to play an advisory role in those cases, or is that uncertain at this point?

Dave: I will play every possible role I can to help out...

Ari: Well, again, congratulations on that, and thanks a lot for your tireless efforts.

Dave: It's another sign of how ideas really do matter. And this has been a long struggle over thirty years to bring the Second Amendment back from its moribund state in law. It was always very strong in the hearts and minds of the American people, but there was a lot of scholarship written over the last thirty years, and I was happy to have played a part in helping with some of that, that has really made the Second Amendment regain its proper role in American life, and as an important part of the Bill of Rights, just like any other.

Ari: Do you have any other projects going right now? I know you're always writing about something.

Dave: I've been doing more and more work on Taiwan issues is recent years, and trying to support the rights of democratic self-determination of the people of the independent nation of Taiwan, which is a target of Chinese imperialist neocolonialism... I want to do what I can to help Taiwan maintain its freedom and independence...

Ari: There's this strange tension in China, where they still have many totalitarian aspects, but they also have some more market robustness. Do you see one side as gaining force over another, or is it just a hopelessly chaotic mix and the moment? How do you see that as developing over the next decade, say?

Dave: It's very hard to predict, and it could go either way. But clearly the model that the Chinese dictatorship wants is the one they see in Singapore, which is where you maintain an authoritarian government, at the same time having enough economic freedom to keep the people happy...

Ari: Do you have anything else that I should be reporting on my web page?

Dave. Yeah. Thanks to you and to the Colorado Freedom Report for the great work you've been doing for ten years. You have accomplished a great deal single-handed. You're an important voice in Colorado's political dialog. And I agree with you about 97 percent of the time, and even on those other three percent, I think you provide an important perspective, and it's a great blessing for Colorado to have you here. Even though you don't realize it in your own atheistic way, God's put you here for a purpose.

Ari: Well, I appreciate that, seriously, Dave. Well, thanks a lot for your time, and we'll see you next year.

See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/independence-institute-2008-banquet.html) collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Criminal Libel Makes Bad Law

December 4, 2008

Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/04/carroll-going-to-the-dogs/) describes a recent case of criminal libel, then concludes:

[J.P.] Weichel [of Loveland] may not be a very nice guy, but the answer isn't to put him in jail for speech that doesn't endanger a soul. If what he said was false, then the victims should sue him for libel.

But leave the district attorney out of it.

It is a horribly written, nonobjective law:

18-13-105. Criminal libel.

(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

(3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.

Notice that the law expressly allows the possibility of true "libel," though the more common sense of the term implies that a libelous statement is false. The first paragraph contains no test of truth.

We have every right—and indeed a moral responsibility—to "blacken the memory" of bad people who have died, as well as to impeach the reputations of the living insofar as they negatively impact the culture or polity.

Colorado's criminal libel statute is an affront not only to free speech but to justice.

I hereby publicly declare that the politicians who supported the passage of this statute thereby violated liberty and justice and implemented an idiotic law. My express purpose here is to "blacken the memory" of those politicians. I further publicly declare that among the "natural defects" of Larimer County District Attorney Larry Abrahamson, who (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/29/loveland-man-charged-libel-over-craigslist-comment/) filed charges against Weichel, is a willingness to trample liberty and justice, insofar as he sanctions the criminal libel statute. I intend here to impeach his reputation, and I heartily encourage the public to heap upon him hatred, contempt, and ridicule for this case.

(While I hate to follow such a diatribe with a magnanimous note, Abrahamson may have inadvertently performed a public service by again bringing this unjust law to public light and giving the 2009 legislature another opportunity to repeal it. Now all Abrahamson needs to do to restore his reputation is to testify for the law's repeal.)

Comment: By the way, truth is usually a defense against libel. But in many cases, saying nasty things about private citizens may violate privacy laws. That is, say true bad things about public officials and you are OK. Start writing about your neighbor's porn addiction and you still might be in hot water.

Comment by T. J. Welch: I'm no expert, but Article II of the Colorado Constitution would seemingly give some powers to jurors to nullify any guilty verdict in a criminal libel case: Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

Comment by Art Lister: As long as you don't threaten someone with extortion (money or power for concelment in this case), the law should be on the side of truth, period. In a conflict between truth and privacy, truth should win. If you offer your neighbor a choice: pay or I'll tell the world about your porn addition, you are trying to force him (or her) to put money above truth. Again, truth should win (and you go to jail for extortion, a form of force). People certainly have a right to do things they are ashamed of in private, but they have no right to be insulated from the consequences of their actions (which is to feel shame when their actions are discovered and publicized). If the shameful things are illegal as well(like a hobby of torturing kittens is cruelty to animals), they cannot avoid prosecution. Protection against illegal search, etc. were not devised to conflate the truth but to prevent the power of the state from using its vested power advantage against its citizenry for its own agenda (which is to preserve or further its power).

Prohibition Free for 75 Years

December 6, 2008

To celebrate the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, I wrote a letter to the Rocky Mountain News that the paper (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/05/heres-to-prohibitions-end/) published today. Here I extend my comments.

I summarize in the letter, "Then, like today, Republicans promoted statist controls of both economy and social life. Democrats ramped up the economic controls but promised to liberate people in their personal choices."

The paper edited out the next line: "Prohibitionist Republicans alienated many freedom-minded voters—including arch-capitalist Ayn Rand—and Roosevelt trounced Hoover in the presidential contest."

I called the Ayn Rand Institute to verify the claim about Rand. Jeff Britting, archivist for the organization, said that Rand voted for FDR in his first presidential election because of his opposition to prohibition. However, Britting noted, Rand later became more political and became a vocal critic of FDR and the New Deal. The information is contained in unpublished audio recordings from the 1960s. Apparently Rand expressed concern about the expansion of state power as well as the problem of organized crime.

While poking around on the internet, I also found the claim that Isabel Paterson voted for FDR the first time around. Biographer Stephen Cox noted that this information is contained in Paterson's letter to Lillian Fischer, dated September 8, 1932. Cox writes:

She had voted for Roosevelt. She didn't like him, but at least he was opposed to prohibition. She made no comment on the fact that his platform favored certain economic policies that she approved, such as a balanced budget and a deep cut in federal spending. Once the New Deal got underway, she reminded people about his unkept campaign pledges; during the election, however, she seems to have taken them no more seriously than he did. [The Woman and the Dynamo, page 165, endnotes omitted.]

The parallels between then and now are striking. Bush, like Hoover, dramatically expanded the power of the federal government. Bush, like Hoover, alienated many voters with his commitment to social controls.

Note that I am not arguing that FDR won because of Prohibition; I am arguing that Prohibition was an important contributing factor. Likewise, Republicans did not get trounced during this last election solely because of their social conservatism and faith-based politics. As I have stated, I think McCain hammed the final nail in his own electoral coffin when he rushed to the District of Columbia to push through Bush's bailout. This proved to the American people, most of whom opposed the bailout, that, like Hoover, modern Republicans are enemies of economic liberty.

I do not think that Obama will be as destructive as FDR was. (Nor do I think people like Paterson or Rand could have predicted just how bad FDR would turn out to be.) Those decades of the 20th Century were dominated by the rise of Communism. My dad is currently reading The Haunted Wood, and he reports that FDR's government contained Soviet-friendly officials. Those were the ideas of the era. Today, the collapse of Communism continues to inform people's basic worldviews, and free markets continue to attract many. But this is an aside. Despite the many differences between the times, Bush is in many important respects Obama's Hoover.

Also edited out of the letter was this bit about Hoover:

Hoover complained about the violent police raids, crime, disrespect for the law, and international smuggling associated with Prohibition, but he praised its "high purpose" and hoped "it was the final solution of the evils of the liquor traffic." He wanted to return control to the states while achieving "elimination of the evils of this traffic."

These claims come from two sources. The (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1920/comments_on_alcohol_prohibition_.htm) first quotes some of Hoover's comments on Prohibition. The (http://americanhistory.about.com/library/docs/blhooverspeech1932.htm) second is Hoover's acceptance of nomination speech on August 11, 1932. What struck me about this speech is Hoover's wishy-washiness. He seems to want to maintain a general policy of Prohibition while restoring power over the matter to the states.

I was also struck by FDR's condemnation of "the saloon" even as he forcefully (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75174) demanded the repeal of the 18th Amendment:

And talking about setting a definite example, I congratulate this convention for having had the courage fearlessly to write into its declaration of principles what an overwhelming majority here assembled really thinks about the 18th Amendment. This convention wants repeal. Your candidate wants repeal. And I am confident that the United States of America wants repeal.

Two years ago the platform on which I ran for Governor the second time contained substantially the same provision. The overwhelming sentiment of the people of my State, as shown by the vote of that year, extends, I know, to the people of many of the other States. I say to you now that from this date on the 18th Amendment is doomed. When that happens, we as Democrats must and will, rightly and morally, enable the States to protect themselves against the importation of intoxicating liquor where such importation may violate their State laws. We must rightly and morally prevent the return of the saloon.

But, if FDR hated "saloons," he had no aversion to alcohol. He (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14551&st=&st1=) said of the Volstead Act on March 13, 1933:

To the Congress:
I recommend to the Congress the passage of legislation for the immediate modification of the Volstead Act, in order to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution; and to provide through such manufacture and sale, by substantial taxes, a proper and much-needed revenue for the Government. I deem action at this time to be of the highest importance.

I was unable to nail down the details about the quote, "I think this would be a good time for a beer." Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States) links the quote to the Volstead amendment. Yet others link the quote to the 21st Amendment.

I got the information about Colorado's wine industry from a (http://www.coloradowine.com/history.html) web page hosted by the Colorado Wine Industry Development Board. I found it ironic that, while the state government once destroyed the wine industry, now it actively promotes it through dedicated tax funds.

Yet the evening wears on, and I have not yet made my own toast to the repeal of Prohibition.

Gun Buy-Back Hits Legal Snag

December 6, 2008

On November 14 I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/gun-show-loophole.html) pointed out that a proposed gun buy-back in Denver would have to meet the legal requirements of a gun show. The organizers would have to post gun-show notices, have a licensed gun dealer on the premises to record the transactions, and make sure that anyone accepting guns goes through a background check. There's still no word on whether the organizers intend to follow these legal requirements. However, the event was delayed due to another legal problem, as the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/05/organizers-postpone-gun-buy-back-rally-until-dec-2/) reports:

Denver park officials said organizers obtained a permit for the anti-violence part of their program. But the city forbids firearms in any park. ...

Alvertis Simmons, an event organizer, said the rally was the subject of media reports and that he explicity told city officials it would include a gun buy back program. Organizers were offering gun owners $50 in exchange for each firearm.

But, Simmons said, no one from the city told him it would be illegal to hold the gun buy back at the park until Friday.

Simmons and organizers have decided to postpone the rally until Dec. 27, when it will be held at the New Covenant Christian Church, 825 Ivanhoe St.

So now a church will host the gun show. I'll check to see whether the church intends to follow the law. We wouldn't want any loopholes, now would we?

Rand on Prohibition, Hoover

December 6, 2008

Yesterday I briefly (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/prohibition-free-for-75-years.html) discussed Rand's take on Prohibition and FDR. Jeff Britting turned me on to a couple of comments that Rand made about Prohibition and Hoover. Mark Wickens looked up these quotes and sent me the result. Here's what Rand had to say:

Only one thing is certain: a dictatorship cannot take hold in America today. This country, as yet, cannot be ruled—but it can explode. It can blow up into the helpless rage and blind violence of civil war. It cannot be cowed into submission, passivity, malevolence, resignation. It cannot be "pushed around." Defiance, not obedience, is the American's answer to overbearing authority. The nation that ran an underground railroad to help human beings escape from slavery, or began drinking on principle in the face of Prohibition, will not say, "Yes, sir," to the enforcers of ration coupons or cereal prices. Not yet. ("Don't Let It Go, Part II," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 5, December 6, 1971, page 21 of the bound volume.)

President Nixon opened the way for [McGovern] (just as another "conservative," President Hoover, opened the way for the welfare-state policies of President Roosevelt). ("The Dead End," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, No. 20, July 3, 1972, page 85 of the bound volume.)

It has been an interesting hundred years, and I suspect our times will grow more interesting still.

Obama Signals Massive Federal Spending

December 7, 2008

Well, here it comes. We can't claim he didn't warn us. Obama will try to socialize medicine and massively increase federal spending.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11148011) reports:

President-elect Barack Obama is formally launching his ambitious health-care reform effort with a call for ordinary Americans to spend the last two weeks of December talking about health care, then sending their ideas to Washington.

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, the man who will lead the reform effort and Obama's likely nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, reached out to citizens during a health-care summit in Denver on Friday morning. He cast it as the first step in an ambitious effort that will end in a much improved health-care system for the country—and one that won't be derailed by economic crisis.

Especially now that the Rocky Mountain News appears to be on its way out, we can look forward to more such journalistic cheerleading for Obama's grand spending sprees.

Obama, the Post declares (citing Tom Daschle), will "increase access to health care for the poor and uninsured."

Of course the system is rigged to solicit the opinions of those special interests who desire the concentrated benefits of wealth transfers. But Americans who favor liberty may also (http://change.gov/page/s/yourstory) send in comments. (I include my comments below.)

Paul Hsieh (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2008/12/hsieh-oped-asking-for-trouble-in-health.html) explains why Obama's plan would lead inexorably to a government take-over of medicine. See also a (http://www.american.com/archive/2008/october-10-08/obamas-plan-to-end-private-health-insurance) piece by Grace-Marie Turner (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) (via Brian Schwartz).

Obama also wants to redirect resources on a massive scale to politically-approved enterprises. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html) reports:

President-elect Barack Obama promised Saturday to create the largest public works construction program since the inception of the interstate highway system a half century ago...

Mr. Obama's remarks showcased his ambition to expand the definition of traditional work programs for the middle class, like infrastructure projects to repair roads and bridges, to include new-era jobs in technology and so-called green jobs that reduce energy use and global warming emissions.

Given the government ownership of roads, the government will fund such projects. Yet, given that system, the dedicated gas tax is the best way to link use to funding. The only goal should be to improve the roads, not to "stimulate" the economy, a recipe for wasteful special-interest spending. (The proper policy of turning the transportation infrastructure over to a free market lies beyond the scope of this post.)

Spending in other industries will only further bring them under the direct control of the federal government. We'll see more spectacles like the one of car manufacturers prostrating themselves before their political masters, promising to be good boys and girls and make things the way Big Mommy thinks best.

Obama's policy, to the degree that it is implemented, will stifle entrepreneurial creativity, turn business leaders into servants of the political class, and transfer funds away from the productive to the profligate.

Following are my comments to Obama:

Dear President-Elect Barack Obama,

I am writing express my support for individual rights, which you appear ready to undermine. People have the right to decide for themselves how to spend what they earn and on what terms to cooperate with others. The government's sole legitimate function is to protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

You propose to expand the forcible redistribution of wealth, not only to advance the government take-over of medicine, but to "create" numerous politically-approved jobs.

Yet the failures of modern health care are a direct result of previous political controls of medicine, including tax policies that have tied insurance to employment and mandates that have increased the cost of insurance.

Your make-work schemes will not add net jobs to the U.S. economy; they will only divert resources away from some jobs to ones that you and your political supporters favor. The funds inevitably will be influenced by special-interest politicking. The modern mortgage crisis, like modern problems in medicine, were caused by misguided political controls, including manipulation of interest rates, government-sponsored lending institutions, and unjust lending mandates. The proper response to the mortgage crisis is a renewal of economic liberty, not a continuation of failed political controls.

I am not persuaded that your administration will listen to the voices of Americans who favor liberty. As you surely know, special interests will dominate your solicitation process, as they stand to gain from your wealth redistribution plans. Meanwhile, the many Americans who stand to pay the price in terms of higher eventual taxes, inflation, and lost economic opportunities may be mostly ignored. I urge your administration to rethink your unjust policies of "spreading the wealth around" by political force. I urge you to instead help restore the nation to its heritage of liberty.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

Politicians Caused and Worsened the Great Depression

December 8, 2008

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081208/OPINION/812079983/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Politicians%20caused%20and%20worsened%20the%20Great%20Depression) was published December 8, 2008, by Grand Junction's Free Press. Links have been added here.

Politicians caused and worsened the Great Depression

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Do we really want a new New Deal? The answer depends on whether we think Roosevelt's New Deal made things better or worse during the Great Depression.

The Progressives count FDR a national savior and see Barack Obama as the Second Coming. Yet, while the term "progressive" evokes concern for the poor and community spirit, it names the politics of taking people's wealth by force and controlling their lives.

Progressive sophistry extends to the New Deal. For example, in a column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html) writes, "Now, there's a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it's important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans."

Beyond the fact that left-wing academics and newspaper columnists hardly prove more reliable, a large body of scholarly work shows the destructiveness of the New Deal and earlier policies.

Historians Paul Johnson and Jim Powell take a dim view of FDR, as does Amity Shlaes in her book The Forgotten Man. Shlaes is an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations. In a recent column, George Will (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/30/will-beware-another-new-deal/) cites other scholars critical of the policies of FDR and Hoover. Economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway criticize FDR in their book Out of Work. This book was published through the Independent Institute of California, but Krugman might address its arguments rather than smear its authors.

So let us look at some of the relevant facts in the space available. While natural disasters can disrupt the economy, in large, prosperous economies such as ours the most powerful threat to economic health comes from ill-informed and special-interest-serving politicians. Economists who follow von Mises point out that inflationary spending skews the flow of capital, leading to painful readjustment.

Monetary politics played an important role in causing the Great Depression. Especially since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the federal government has largely controlled the banks. In 1927, Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, cut his bank's lending rate to provide what he deemed a shot of whiskey to the stock market. Then, in 1928 and 1929, the Federal Reserve sharply increased rates, sucking the wind out of the economy.

The Federal Reserve also contributed to the easy lending behind the modern mortgage crisis. The government, intent on preventing a deflationary spiral, is keeping lending rates low and spending trillions in new money. However, not only does this prevent healthy economic adjustments, it leads to harmful inflation. Central planners have a hard time maintaining a steady money supply.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that Hoover signed in 1930 devastated international trade. However, Hoover supported the tariff in 1929 before the crash. Amity Shlaes cites a telegram from a General Motors executive: "Passage bill would spell economic isolation United States and most severe depression ever experienced."

Thankfully, today few seem interested in imposing that sort of protectionism. However, Obama (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm) wants to restrict trade under the protectionist covers of "strong labor standards and strong environmental standards."

The policies of Hoover and FDR devastated the labor market. Now the unemployment rate in Colorado approaches 6 percent. In 1933 it was 25 percent nationally. After falling, it spiked up to 19 percent by 1938, long after FDR took office in 1933.

The left claims the problem is that FDR didn't spend enough of other people's money in his massive welfare and make-work schemes. But the reality is that Hoover and FDR caused the high unemployment through a series of policies and laws that kept the monetary wages of some artificially high. These wage controls worked in concert with the deflationary monetary policies of the late '20s and mid '30s to keep a huge portion of the population out of work. It is of little consolation that FDR "brought real relief" to those he first helped deprive of employment.

Today the auto industry wants taxpayers to foot the bill for its failure. Notably, this industry remains strangled by the union favoritism started by Hoover and perfected by FDR.

When politicians "stimulate" the economy, they do so by distributing wealth from some to others. So when Obama or Governor Ritter claim to "create" jobs in the "new energy economy" or other sector, remember that they're destroying other jobs and replacing them with politically-correct ones. The proper remedy for government-induced unemployment is not more corporate and personal welfare, but rather a repeal of the policies that damaged the employment market.

Politicians caused the modern mortgage crisis through easy-lending policies (see our November 10 (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/ayn-rand-doesnt-need-bailout.html) article), and they caused they Great Depression through a series of central controls (only some of which we've reviewed here). Will Americans keep getting suckered by political "solutions" to the economic problems caused by politicians? Or will we finally demand economic liberty?

Uncertainty and Recession

December 8, 2008

I've just posted an (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/politicians-caused-and-worsened-great.html) article by my dad and me explaining some of the important causes of the Great Depression. George Will (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/30/will-beware-another-new-deal/) points to another problem both then and now: the uncertainty that results from seat-of-the-pants interventions.

The $700 Billion bailout was passed with no specific plan for how the money would be spent. Much of it was frittered away on special-interest corporate welfare. Through the bailout, the government forced various firms to take the money, or else, and interfered with private contracts. That bailout, and the various others that have been passed and proposed, reward failure and punish success, and they do so after the fact. Meanwhile, laws such as antitrust put business mergers under the arbitrary thumb of federal agencies. The net result is that people don't know what they should do as economic actors, because the rules of the game are arbitrary and always changing.

Will quotes Russell Roberts of George Mason University:

By acting without rhyme or reason, politicians have destroyed the rules of the game. There is no reason to invest, no reason to take risk, no reason to be prudent, no reason to look for buyers if your firm is failing. Everything is up in the air and, as a result, the only prudent policy is to wait and see what the government will do next. The frenetic efforts of FDR had the same impact: Net investment was negative through much of the 1930s.

If federal politicians want to help end the recession, they should quit rewarding failure with other people's money, restore rights of property and contract, move toward monetary stability, and generally quit overriding individual rights with political controls.

Denver Post Reporter Omits Gun Show Rules for Buy Back

December 8, 2008

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/gun-show-loophole.html) pointed out, a proposed gun buy-back project in Denver falls under Colorado's gun-show laws, passed in 2000 as Amendment 22. Statutes declare that a gun show exists when "not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms," and a "vendor" is "any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm..." So the gun buy back is a gun show under Colorado law.

This is a fact that the Denver Post's Mike McPhee does not think his readers ought to know. After McPhee co-wrote a December 6 (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_11155996) story about how the buy-back was delayed over a permit snafu at City Park—it turns out that park rules prohibit firearms—I asked McPhee about the gun-show angle.

I wrote, "You still haven't reported whether the gun buy-back's organizers plan to follow the gun-show laws; the group is clearly a gun show under Colorado law."

McPhee replied, "adn why are you so worried if they fall under the gun-show laws? you don't support this buy-back? why not?"

But the issue is not whether I support the buy-back, but whether the law will be enforced uniformly, or only on those disliked by the establishment. The premise that police should enforce the law selectively, according to a political agenda, is quite dangerous. So I wrote back, "I'm not 'worried' about it; I'm just wondering if the law will be uniformly enforced. Why are you so resistant to reporting the relevant facts?"

McPhee replied:

I'm not resistant at all, and don't know why you think I should report it, or why you even care if I report it.
The cops know about this, the city knows about it, everyone knows about it.
If the guns are turned over to the cops, who will be near by, what is your concern?
Finally someone is doing something good, and you're all worried if he's got a license or something.
Go buy back some guns with him, or give him a donation. i'll report that.

In other words, McPhee admits that he's not interested in reporting the facts about the gun-show law because of his personal agenda.

I am happy to take this opportunity to answer McPhee.

First, insofar as the buy-back encourages gangsters and other criminals to hand over their guns and give up their lives of violence, it is a worthy project. However, offering $50 for guns is only going to encourage people with broken or crappy guns worth less than $50 to turn in their guns for a profit. Active criminals are unlikely to turn their guns in, especially given the event is, as McPhee points out, closely linked with the police. To me, a better program simply would have been to encourage criminals to destroy their weapons and stop committing crimes. Another problem with the buy-back is that it was not limited in outreach to criminals; various promoters said they wanted peaceable people to turn their guns in, too. But that has nothing to do with stopping crime. (A firearms training program for responsible citizens would do a lot more to deter crime.)

But the central issue is not about whether the gun buy-back is a good idea. It is about the unintended consequences of unjust laws, and whether those laws will be selectively enforced according to the political agendas of the establishment.

I opposed Amendment 22. Back in 2000, I (http://www.freecolorado.com/no22/) warned that the definition of a gun show was arbitrary and would "only serve to harass peaceable gun owners." I didn't anticipate that the law also would apply to gun buy-backs.

No, I do not think that the organizers of the buy-back—legally the gun show—should be subject to those restrictions. I don't believe those restrictions should exist in law. However, I also see an enormous problem if police enforce the gun show laws only for organizations they don't like, and wink at the law when it suits their political agenda.

Now, I do not know whether the event's organizers are aware of the applicability of the gun-show law to their proposed event. I have not yet been able to find contact information for Alvertis Simmons, and I've left a message for Pastor Reginald Holmes of New Covenant Christian Church, where the rescheduled buy-back is planned. Perhaps the event's organizers are aware of the law and plan to follow it. This is a question that reporters should answer, and that I will answer as soon as I can get ahold of the relevant parties.

I've also asked a spokesperson with the Denver Police Department whether officers will attend the event, whether they will be on duty, and whether they will ensure enforcement of the gun show statutes. I will post those answers as soon as I receive them. [Update: Denver Police Detective Sharon Avendano called me back at around 12:45 p.m. She said, "We have not been notified or advised of this at this time," even though the police "were [notified] on the last one they had," the one scheduled for December 6 that was cancelled. It's unclear to me, then, why McPhee believes the police "will be near," when the police apparently had not been contacted about the rescheduled event.]

To review, Colorado law imposes three main requirements on gun shows: the organizers must post a notice regarding the gun show, they must have a licensed firearms dealer on hand to record each transaction, and anybody receiving guns must undergo a background check.

The background check may not be a problem, as Simmons has (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=2464) said people can "drop the gun in the box," presumably for the police to pick up. McPhee asserts that "cops... will be near by," but I'd like verification of that fact. Will police officers be present at the church during the entire event? (Good luck getting criminals to show up.) Will they collect the box after the fact? Will anyone else receive guns?

Notably, the gun-show law does not make any exceptions if police are the recipients of the guns. While the background checks presumably would be taken care of, the posting and recording requirements would still apply.

Also note that Colorado law imposes criminal penalties on the people turning in their guns, if they don't make sure the recipient has undergone a background check. The person turning in a gun has the legal obligation to "obtain approval of a transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer." Presumably the CBI could issue a blanket approval for a particular officer.

One question I'd like to ask Simmons and Holmes is whether they voted for Amendment 22.

The advocates of Amendment 22 intended to make it harder to transfer guns. They've succeeded, in ways that neither they nor I anticipated. But this is a fact thus far excluded from Denver's newspapers, which were hardly as reserved about cheerleading the passage of Amendment 22.

GOP Remains Party of Faith

December 9, 2008

If Colorado Republican leaders Mark Hillman and John Andrews are any indication, the Republican Party will remain the Party of Faith and will continue to attempt to impose religious doctrine by force of law.

Andrews begins a recent (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnAndrews/2008/12/08/anti-slavery_then,_pro-life_now) column, "What many call a concern for social issues, I call a passion for protection of the human person." He goes on to compare abortion with slavery, and he suggests that at least we should have "laws to balance this difficult issue where precious lives are at stake." The Republican Party, he states, should not "abandon its defense of the unborn."

There is just one little thing missing from Andrews's column: any argument as to why we should believe that a zygote, a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells, is a "human person." Recall that Andrews endorsed Colorado's Amendment 48, which would have defined a fertilized egg as a person. Given Andrews's beliefs, his call for "balance" is an unconscionable compromise; does he really want "balance" that would result in the deaths of what he regards as "human persons?"

I guess Andrews is acknowledging that most Coloradans regard his views as ludicrous; 73 percent of the voters rejected 48. And yet he insists on promoting his faith-based politics through the GOP.

Mark Hillman (http://townhall.com/columnists/MarkHillman/2008/12/08/in_defense_of_social_conservatives) writes:

Recently, some have grumbled that social conservatives—pro-lifers, opponents of same-sex marriage and the so-called "Religious Right"—are to blame for the party's recent set backs and should be muzzled. If the goal is winning elections, rather than purging membership rolls at the country club, throwing social conservatives under the bus is a catastrophic idea.

But this comparison to throwing them "under a bus" is silly. Here is what I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-iv-toward.html) written:

Religious voters can remain a part of a winning GOP coalition, so long as their goal is to keep politics out of religion, not inject religion into politics. Abortion bans and fear mongering about homosexuals can no longer be the litmus tests of primaries. Republican candidates must clearly endorse the separation of church and state, a separation necessary for the protection of both church and state.

In other words, I am perfectly happy to join a coalition that contains Christians, so long as the Christians stop trying to violate people's rights.

Hillman pretends that evangelicals also favor economic liberty, even though evangelicals blessed us with the likes of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.

Hillman does point out:

This year, moderate "maverick" John McCain enjoyed 72% support from evangelicals (of all parties) on Election Day, despite ranking as the least favorite primary candidate of pro-life Republicans.

I don't know where the statistic is coming from, but it sounds right. Hillman is selectively retelling history. Of course evangelicals such as James Dobson rallied for McCain only after McCain selected Palin as his running mate. These evangelicals supported that ticket because of Palin's anti-abortion record, and despite the fact that McCain is an enemy of economic liberty and free speech. That pretty much tells us where the priorities of the evangelicals are.

Hillman points out that many more people favor some abortion restrictions than voted for 48. True, but irrelevant. Amendment 48 shows the logical consequences of the religious right's position. Voters who value liberty will not sanction Republican efforts to "incrementally" obliterate the right to get an abortion.

Hillman also points out that defining a marriage as between a man and woman is fairly popular. Yet, as I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/11/dobson-insists-on-faith-based-politics.html) noted, the stance against gay "marriage" is not strictly religious, and the general attitudes toward homosexuals—especially among younger voters—are much more accepting, whereas the propaganda against homosexuals coming from the religious right is vitriolic.

But Hillman, like Andrews is ready to compromise:

[P]ro-life leaders sometimes treat each tangent like a slippery slope. Battles over stem cell research and Terri Schiavo aren't as clearly defined as the mission of saving millions of unborn children.

In other words, banning all abortions is a "clearly defined" mission of the religious right and therefore the Republican Party.

I'm beginning to think that the "new liberty coalition" that I've described cannot arise within the Republican Party. Faith-based politics is incompatible with liberty. I'll be interested to see which mission becomes most clearly defined for the GOP.

Car Czars?

December 9, 2008

Oh, (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/08/stakes-detroits-big/) boy...

Congress and the White House inched toward a financial rescue of the Big Three auto makers, negotiating legislation that would give the U.S. government a substantial ownership stake in the industry...

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/pelosi-likes-idea-auto-bailout-car/) And...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi touted the notion of a "car czar" Tuesday to supervise an auto industry bailout...

A "car czar?" Just what country are we living in? And here I thought that people had learned their lesson that central planning doesn't work. The national government has just partially nationalized the banks, and now it seems intent on partially nationalizing auto producers.

Originally, I didn't think we'd be in for much of a recession, relatively speaking. But federal politicians seem absolutely intent on mucking up the economy as much as possible, which could well put us in a long-term slump.

God's Only Party

December 10, 2008

Yesterday I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/12/gop-remains-party-of-faith.html) noted that two Colorado Republican leaders continue to insist that their party promote faith-based politics. Today Gregg Jackson continues the crusade to ban abortion in his (http://townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2008/12/09/its_time_for_a_new_strategy_to_end_abortion_starting_with_president_bush) column for Town Hall.

Jackson's goal, and his advice for Republicans, is "To end abortion . . . to believe that all life, both born and unborn, is an unalienable right and protect it at all cost."

That is, a fertilized egg is a person and must be protected, regardless of the costs to the woman.

What Jackson fails to provide is any reason why we should think that a fertilized egg is a person. That's not surprising, because there is no earthly reason.

Liberty, Not Lies

December 10, 2008

Terence Jeffrey (http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/12/10/the_big_government_light_brigade) pointed me to an (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/opinion/08kristol.html) article by William Kristol for the New York Times that argues against "small-government conservatism." Following I summarize Kristol's reasons.

* Though Jeb Bush has railed against "big-government" policies, "in his two terms [as the governor of Florida] state spending increased over 50 percent."

* "Five Republicans have won the presidency since 1932: Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. Only Reagan was even close to being a small-government conservative."

* The 1994 "Contract With America" failed to deliver.

* W. Bush expanded Medicare.

Krisol concludes, "So talk of small government may be music to conservative ears, but it's not to the public as a whole."

But then Krisol adds the following parenthetical note: "Besides, the public knows that government's not going to shrink much no matter who's in power." No, the public knows that Republicans have expanded federal spending even faster than the Democrats.

But this contradicts Kristol's main point. Kristol thinks "small-government" Republicans aren't popular. The truth is that the public knows that most Republican politicians who claim to support a "small government" are damned liars.

Perhaps the reason that the public does not vote for a small government that protects individual rights and economic liberty is that Republicans offer no such policy, and those who claim to do so routinely advocate a massive welfare state, religious controls, and economic controls in the name of "small government."

A Modest Proposal for the Rocky Mountain News

December 10, 2008

I love the Rocky Mountain News. Like many in the community, I am saddened that the selling block seems more like the chopping block.

Can the paper be saved?

Probably not, if we take the "paper" bit literally. But I do think that the Rocky could be saved with modest funds (I mean, "modest" for the various rich people who could swing the project), if the publication were converted to an internet-only source of news and political commentary.

The first simple fact to recognize about newspapers is that practically nobody reads them cover to cover. Some people pick them up for news, while others pick them up for sports, entertainment, advertisements, or political commentary. The classic newspaper model is to combine all of those elements into a package that many people will buy. Well, that model is failing (or at least weakening) in the internet age.

I believe I've purchased a single newspaper in the past year, and that's because I had an article published in it. I get my news and commentary through a variety of online publications (including the Rocky) for free (well, for the cost of looking at ads). I get my classifieds through Craigslist. I get my entertainment news through Westword and Fandango. I don't care about sports, but if I did I'd turn to ESPN or some such.

I've heard that Boulder Weekly is doing okay in print, and I assume the same holds true for Westword. Those are specialty, weekly print publications that focus on entertainment news and regional issues. They are not "news" papers. They're also free. They follow a different model than what the Rocky needs to embrace.

Another fact about the Rocky is that most of its content can be had elsewhere. Any college graduate can chase ambulances. Basic sports news is ubiquitous. I typically read outside columns that appear in the Rocky days before they appear in print. The fact is that I read only a small minority of the news articles that appear in the Rocky.

Just to give a quick example, I'll offer a run-down of the headlines now available online in the Rocky's local news section, along with my immediate reaction.

"Survivor meets cops who saved her"—Don't care, and if I did I'd watch TV.
"Driver on cell phone rolls semi, jams I-76"—Don't care. If I want traffic news I'll listen to FM.
"Weather: Big meltdown sets stage for more snow"—Hello, weather.com.
"Secretary of state candidates narrowed to three finalists"—Okay, that's interesting.
"Patrol names new lieutenant colonel"—Yawn.
"Extra!"—Extra lame.
"Jury convicts man in shootout at Vietnamese restaurant"—Don't care.
"Mansion matter mulled"—You've got to be freaking kidding me. Don't care.
"Man survives snowstorm in camp restroom, but dog dies"—Tough luck.
"LEAP offers shield from winter's wrath"—I had to read the description for this one: "Patty Hancock's ancestors rumbled across the plains to Colorado on a covered wagon." Don't waste my time.
"Study lauds state's disease watch system, but faults vaccine supply"—This is potentially interesting, but not to me.
"$286 million Justice complex 'going smoothly'"—Potentially interesting.
"Boulder rape crisis center taking more calls"—Interesting, but isn't this available through the Daily Comrade?
"'Call in gay' aimed at public awareness"—This is barely interesting.
"Secretary of state finalists narrowed to three"—Because I want to read the same story twice.

The upshot is that most of the Rocky's news section is wasted effort, and most of the rest is duplicated effort. Where's the market niche?

Yes, a city does need a basic news service. We have that. I at least want to run down the headlines to see generally what's going on. But I don't need the Rocky to do that.

The Rocky excels at offering political commentary and deeper analysis of news stories. That's why I read the paper. There is no other reason I need it. So I suggest that the Rocky stick to what it does well, and cut the rest.

Dump the entertainment, dump the cartoons. Dump the basic sports news. Dump the ambulance chasers. Dump the weather. Dump the AP and all outside content.

More importantly, dump the dead trees and ink. Dump the distribution trucks. Dump the newspaper boxes.

Do what you do well, and do it where it's cheap and most convenient for your readers: the internet.

Notice that my proposal would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the newspaper's costs.

I'm talking about a total staff of perhaps twenty people in a minimalist facility.

The cornerstone of the Rocky is Vincent Carroll. You have to keep him. Generally the commentary section is outstanding. I can live without Paul Campos, and I rarely read Tina Griego or Bill Johnson. On the news side, people like Lynn Bartels write interesting, original stuff that I can't get elsewhere. The Rocky has actually let go some of its best talent in order to keep the stuff that nobody cares about.

The focus of the publication should not be to cover all of the stories, but to cover some of the stories very well. The Rocky should not hire writers to fill in gaps; it should hire good writers and then turn them loose on the city and state. (The publication should also make available its archives.) I'm not even opposed to entertainment and sports writers, so long as they offer some sort of unique value. For example, I've taken to reading restaurant reviews that Jason Sheehan writes for Westword. Hire talent.

The financing? I don't know. Obviously an internet-only publication will lose most of its advertising dollars. I think a nonprofit is probably the way to go. Clearly some people make money through internet advertising. These are not details that I've worked out.

I do know, however, that I've heard of no better plan for keeping the Rocky alive.

Comment by Paul Hsieh: The Christian Science Monitor is going to go all-digital in April 2009. If they can pull it off, then they could set a model for other papers like the RMN. Given their tradition of quality and their loyal subscriber base, I think they have a reasonable chance.

Comment by Jasmine: Excellent business/marketing analysis of RMN. I am not a localite -so I cannot relate to the content of this specific newspaper, but I can definitely relate to what is happening across the country at most all newspapers. As someone who is very interested in the newspaper/media business and have been following the various newspapers and other publications (both paid and free)in Raleigh, North Carolina, in an effort to understand the market and come up with a viable business model that could build on a niche readership, I find this particular blog very enlightening.
Newspapers who decide to go to the internet to cut print and distribution costs (most are going to have to make cuts of some sort in print production, irrespective of size-there are these days continuous business news pouring in of these happening at all the big media establishments-they had become too heavily leveraged -with advertising dollars reducing because of the current slump and the credit crisis making it impossible to renegotiate debt, they are having no choice), as also change focus of their publication by becoming less news oriented and more issue focused will have to find sources of revenue to survive -- whether that be some free articles and others only open to subscribers, archives open for subscription fees, paid reprints, of course the online ads and different ways to partner with businesses, perhaps books services, mobile device services, etc. Technology will have to be exploited full blast to create revenue generating media businesses. WSJ had a good piece few days back on Newsweek's attempt to refocus, which was very interesting read. The article mentioned that The Economist has been doing better in this crisis than most other news establishments are facing. I am planning to research how The Economist has focussed on its core market niche and flourish in its business model. Of course part of it may be that Economist I believe is Britain based and may not be as highly leveraged and may not have participated in the crazy bidding of News businesses that happened in the US.
Great points in this newspaper blog.

Enya's Winter Night

December 10, 2008

(http://www.enya.com/) Enya's new album, And Winter Came, contains several tracks that rank among her best work (with her collaborators, the Ryans.) It's a great Christmas album, and obviously marketed for that, but it's a great album period.

Listening to one of the online mini-documentaries, I learned that Enya writes the music first, then Roma Ryan works up the lyrics. The lyrics read by themselves don't always seem especially impressive. "Have you seen the mistletoe? / It fills the night with kisses." But, from the same song, these lines, though equally obvious, seem poignant:

Green is in the mistletoe
and red is in the holly...
Gold is in the candlelight and
crimson in the embers.
White is in the winter night...

But when Enya sings it, everything seems lovely and meaningful. Of course it fills the night with kisses!

I think the entire album is worth your collection. However, if you're picking out tracks from iTunes, here are my recommendations, in the order they appear on the album:

1. "White Is In the Winter Night"—The lyrics above are from this song. As Roma Ryan suggests, you could sing this one around the fire with your family.
2. "Trains and Winter Rains"—This song, set in winter but not about the holidays, is musically the most interesting of the album, I think. You can watch the video on Enya's web page.
3. "Last Time By Moonlight"—A lovely and lyrical piece.
4. "One Toy Soldier"—As we might expect, the song has a great rhythm. It's about Christmas, but more deeply it's about the worry of disappointing oneself and others, then overcoming that by finding the right beat.
5. "My! My! Time Flies"—This is Enya's swingingest song, and playful, and I quite like it. Be sure to read the fun lyrics. It's a song about reflection, and moving forward.

Evangelicals Leverage Downturn

December 13, 2008

An (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/nyregion/14churches.html) article in the New York Times verifies what many of us suspected: economic downturns are good for certain churches. The paper notes that "evangelical churches around the country... have enjoyed steady growth over the last decade. But since September, pastors nationwide say they have seen... a burst of new interest..."

There seem to be two main reasons for this. As one pastor told the paper, "When people are shaken to the core, it can open doors." The article also discusses an economist who sees the increased attendance as more related to economic concerns: churches provide a safety net, and people without jobs aren't busy on Sundays.

The article mentions (http://www.goodsenseministry.com/) "Good Sense," a church-based financial management program. A downloadable document reveals some of the details. It praises "avoiding consumer debt and saving for the unexpected"—good advice—but it also advocates greater political control of the economy, demonstrating yet again that evangelicals hardly advocate economic liberty as a rule. The document states:

On a macro level, increased regulation of certain sectors of our financial markets, about which some have warned of excesses for some time, will become reality and will hopefully prevent repeats of the abuses that have led to the situation we are in now. Capitalism must have moral restraints and while those can't be legislated, regulations can at least make it harder to do wrong and easier to punish those who do.

Most significantly, we are reminded that earthly treasures can succumb to rust, moths, thieves and to economic upheavals and that it is our treasures in heaven that are safe for eternity.

This also shows the tension within the Christian movements for financial planning. I've heard claims that God wants us to be rich, that the Bible counsels hard work and the prudent accumulation of wealth. Yet the stronger Biblical strain is egalitarianism and the call to renounce wealth. One televangelist told the Times we're living in a "time of fear and greed." Yet this fails to distinguish the "greed" of political manipulations and wealth transfers from the self-interest of free markets and individual rights.

Thus, the evangelical movement offers two conflicting messages: be responsible in how you accumulate wealth, but realize that wealth doesn't matter relative to an eternity in heaven.

I did find this line from the Times humorous: "At the Life Christian Church in West Orange, N.J., prayer requests have doubled—almost all of them aimed at getting or keeping jobs." Yes, all we need is a divine stimulus package.

Folsom Reviews FDR's Errors

December 14, 2008

With my dad I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/politicians-caused-and-worsened-great.html) written an overview of the political follies of the Great Depression. Yet the era deserves much more attention. Within the past few days I received Burton Folsom, Jr.'s New Deal or Raw Deal?, and I'll post some notes about it here.

I was at first concerned that I'd purchased a dud. The book's publisher made a big mistake by including an introduction by Stephen Moore, who brings to the book his widely recognized name—and his partisanship. Moore blasts "liberal Democrats" for their proposals to control the economy, conveniently omitting the fact that Republican George W. Bush massively expanded Medicare and pushed for hundreds of billions in "bailouts."

Folsom's first three chapters are weak. His first chapter on the FDR mythology lays out the established view in unnecessary detail. The second chapter on FDR's background is basically useless in understanding FDR's presidency, though Folsom places great weight on the fact that FDR was a lousy businessman and a great politician. The first two chapters easily could have been combined and condensed.

Folsom's third chapter explains some of the causes of the Great Depression. I learned an interesting detail about the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif, which Folsom concurs was a major cause of the Depression. The tax scheme, which reduced exports "from $7 billion in 1929 to $2.5 billion in 1932," encouraged various European nations to repudiate their war debts to the United States; "if we wouldn't let Europeans trade with us, how could they raise the cash to repay us?"

Folsom points to the failure of the Federal Reserve without indicating that the institution by its nature tends to disrupt the rational economic planning of producers.

The most important part of Chapter 3 is Folsom's review of FDR's "underconsumption" theory, which Folsom describes in his first chapter as the view that "workers did not have adequate purchasing power during the 1920s to buy the products of industrial America." Folsom quotes, and disproves, FDR's economic analysis of the '20s, an analysis rooted in the false doctrine of "underconsumption." FDR's economic beliefs also led him to follow in Hoover's footsteps and try to "improve" the economy through wage controls, though the effect of such controls was to maintain high rates of unemployment. I wish Folsom had done more to explain the ideological roots of this "underconsumption" theory, which is essentially Marxist at root.

Folsom is better at delving into the facts of particular programs. Folsom's Chapter 4 is a great review of the insanity and economic harm of FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act, or NRA. The measure encouraged businesses to cartelize and set prices. Folsom reviews example after example of how the federal government cracked down on business owners for selling goods and services less expensively than their competitors demanded. The NRA led to Byzantine regulations and police-state enforcement. The NRA, effective from 1933 till the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1935, displays FDR's penchant for central economic "planning." Not deterred by the Supreme Court's rebuke, FDR soon returned with Guffey-Snider Act, which set coal prices and eventually undercut the United States coal industry. FDR even dreamed of an international cartel, which he and his advisors would control. The good news for us today is that few seem interested in repeating this particular sort of insanity.

I'll continue my notes on Folsom's book in a later post...

Smoking Ban in Theaters Under Review

December 14, 2008

If you're performing a play in which smoking is an integral part of the character, you have the right to smoke on stage, right? It's part of your rights to property, contract, and free speech, right? Wrong. Colorado's smoking ban makes no exceptions for this.

Thankfully, the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11227679) reports:

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of the statewide smoking ban as it is applied to live theater performances.

This is the first victory in a two-year legal battle between three local theater companies and the Colorado Department of Health.

Curious Theatre, Paragon Theatre and Boulder's Theatre 13 argue that smoking onstage is expressive behavior protected by the First Amendment. A Denver district judge rejected that argument in October 2006, and a three-member appellate court followed suit last March.

The review will begin in March.

It is a tragedy and an injustice, however, that the entire smoking ban is not up for review, for the smoking ban is thoroughly unjust. It violates not only the right of free speech but the right of property and contract.

Article II of the Colorado Constitution contains these provisions:

Section 3. Inalienable rights.

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 10. Freedom of speech and press.

No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty...

Section 28. Rights reserved not disparaged.

The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair or disparage others retained by the people.

The smoking ban clearly is a violation of some people's liberty and rights, and it should be overturned or repealed. Whether owners of establishments ban smoking on their property, and whether customers choose to enter certain establishments based on their policies, is properly up to them.

Investors Clear Houses

December 14, 2008

Last August I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/08/notes-on-housing-market.html) wrote:

The first thing we noticed is that many houses on the market in our area are completely trashed. ...

By encouraging people to buy houses who would not otherwise qualify, the federal government has handed over the keys to people who frankly are not ready for home ownership. Many simply aren't ready to take care of the houses or to competently rent them out, so they end up dumping trashed-out houses on the market. My guess is that this is a large, if not the major, cause of depressed housing prices in many areas.

Today's Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11222655) offers information on the housing market that seems to verify my speculation:

Of the 150,000 home sales in the metro area in the past three years, about 3,400 homes appear to have been fixed and flipped within a 12-month period, according to an analysis by Your Castle Real Estate. The analysis includes six counties—Jefferson, Arapahoe, Adams, Douglas, Denver and Broomfield.

The gross margin, or difference between purchase price and sales price, on fix and flip homes has steadily increased from an average of $38,792 during the first quarter of 2005 to $80,538 during the third quarter this year.

I assume that a big reason for the increase in margin is that people are buying houses in horrible condition and whipping them into shape.

Clearly there are people who are good at evaluating houses and fixing them up. Unfortunately, the government has gone into direct competition with them, meaning that wasteful bureaucrats will push out profit-driven businesses:

The City and County of Denver has received $6.1 million through the federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties that might otherwise become sources of abandonment and blight. It's applied for an additional $10 million from the state.

But Denver has no business entering the housing market. The practice falls far beyond the proper scope of government—which is to protect individual rights—and it involves the use of forcibly transfered funds.

How Hoover and FDR Damaged Agriculture

December 14, 2008

In the typical vision of the Great Depression, hungry children in tattered clothing sulk in the streets. What is not typically recognized is that FDR's policies reduced and destroyed crops of grains and cotton, thereby increasing the costs of food and clothing. FDR may have rhetorically sympathized with the poor, but his policies greatly harmed them.

Burton Folsom, Jr., describes these problems in Chapter 5 of his book, New Deal or Raw Deal?, which I began to review (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/folsom-reviews-fdrs-errors.html) earlier.

Here's the basic story. Hoover with his Smoot-Hawley Tarriff destroyed American agricultural exports. Then, with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Roosevelt paid farmers with tax dollars to stop growing crops on some of their land, artificially propped up the prices of various (politically selected) agricultural products, and unleashed thousands of bureaucrats to enforce the Byzantine controls. The bureaucrats were, of course, paid to reduce agricultural output and increase prices through taxes on food processors that were passed along to consumers.

And yet some people continue to praise FDR as an enlightened, "progressive" president, despite the profound harm of his stunningly stupid programs.

Folsom notes on page 67, "In 1933, the U.S. was plowing under 10 million acres of cotton and killing 6 million piglets; in 1935, the U.S. was importing 36 million (bales) of cotton and 2 million pounds of ham and bacon."

Folsom's chapter on agriculture thus provides important details on the Great Depression. However, the chapter also illustrates Folsom's inability to essentialize and prioritize. Of the 16-page chapter, Folsom devotes the final four-and-a-half pages to reviewing the dispute between FDR's man Rexford Tugwell and Virginia Senator Harry Byrd. It's an interesting story, and it does illustrate the nature of FDR's bureaucratic takeover of America. And yet I found myself wondering why Fosom is so stingy with some elements of the story and so spendthrift with others. The fact that FDR under-tipped for train service is a mildly interesting, peripheral point—hardly one meriting the four-fifths of a page that Folsom devotes to it as a part of the bit on Tugwell, itself a peripheral story.

Nevertheless, Folsom lays bare the folly of FDR's political controls.

D'Souza Trounces Singer

December 15, 2008

[Comment by Ari, August 11, 2025: This is a post that has not held up well at all! D'Souza subsequently destroyed all his credibility through election conspiracy mongering. In various ways he's gone completely off the rails. Meanwhile, I've gained enormous respect for Singer as a philosopher and an ethicist, although I still disagree with him on various issues. Notably, Singer himself has backed away from strict utilitarianism. What can I say; sometimes current me finds "2008 me" embarrassing.]

Dinesh D'Souza smashes ants and declares himself a giant. D'Souza, who tends to declare himself the winner of debates with various atheists, is no doubt correct when it comes to his self-assessment (http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/12/15/run,_peter_signer,_run) against Peter Singer.

D'Souza ridiculously counts Singer as among "the most effective advocates of atheism" and "the best that the opposition has to offer." You've got to be kidding me. I know a lot of atheists personally, and not a single one takes Singer's views remotely seriously. Besides, Singer is not primarily an atheist, he is primarily a (bad) ethicist. That is, his main business is not disproving the existence of God, but concocting wild theories about how people should live.

Ah, but D'Souza asserts:

...I suggested that Singer was a perfect illustration of what you get when you reject God and attempt to construct ethics on a purely secular, Darwinian foundation. Singer's atheism, I suggested, is the primary foundation of his advocacy of infanticide, euthanasia, and animal rights.

His assertion is ludicrous. What does Singer's bizarre utilitarianism have to do with evolutionary theory? D'Souza doesn't say in his article; the correct answer is nothing.

Atheism is not a positive philosophy. It does not, as D'Souza endlessly asserts, imply socialism, Singer's views, or any other particular idea. Atheism is a negative. It asserts that God (and the supernatural) does not exist.

D'Souza thinks that, absent religion, morality is impossible, but he is simply wrong. Aristotle formulated a non-religious, Eudaimonistic ethic long ago, and in the modern age Ayn Rand and her followers have revealed the foundation of morality in the nature of human life.

But D'Souza is interested in apologetics, not in actually refuting the "the best that the opposition has to offer," which he has never squarely faced.

Comment: His last debate with Singer is on YouTube and Singer clearly wins (at Biola University). I would suggest that you would do well to actually read Singer before blithely dismissing straw man versions of his arguments from a dishonest apologetic. Do you, for instance, find his argument about moral obligation unethical? www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA (Biola Pt 1) http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/487 (How demanding are our moral obligations)

Comment by Mark: First off, Singer's arguments are taken very seriously in the many fields to which they apply. He has written influential articles, including a cover article, in the New York Times Magazine, and some of the greatest scholars alive endorse his views, from Steven Pinker to Richard Dawkins. Singer was on Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people, and for good reason. His book Animal Liberation jump-started the entire animal rights movement, which has resulted in drastic changes in our treatment of nonhuman animals around the world. Instead of criticizing his conclusions, try objecting to his arguments, by which he reaches those conclusions. Here are two very introductory pieces: ...on humanitarian aid: http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990905mag-poverty-singer.html ...and probably his most important argument, on nonhuman animals: http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/animals/singer-text.html Perhaps Ari Armstrong should write another article criticizing Singer's reasoning. Then we can have a real discussion.

'Taxpayers... Bleeding at Every Pore'

December 15, 2008

Here I continue my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/how-hoover-and-fdr-damaged-agriculture.html) review of Burton Folsom Jr.'s new book, New Deal Or Raw Deal? In Chapter 6, Burton describes employment payments and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). At the end I relate the history to modern events.

As I've reviewed, federal politicians generated the unemployment problem of the Great Depression through trade-killing tariffs, investment-killing Federal Reserve policies, and job-killing wage controls. On top of this, politicians imposed price controls and reduced crops of food and cotton, thereby increasing the costs of food, clothing, and all manner of other goods and services. Most of these controls resulted from the bipartisan efforts of Hoover, FDR, and Congress. And yet we are to take FDR as some sort of national hero for forcibly redistributing wealth to his victims. And how did that work out?

In 1932, Congress under Hoover passed a $300 million Emergency Relief Construction Act to provide money to states claiming to need it. Roosevelt increased the funding under his Federal Emergency Relief Administration. This had two main effects. First, state leaders had a strong incentive to claim need and to perpetuate need. Second, individuals had a strong incentive to stay on tax-funded relief. It turns out that rewarding people for staying in need tends to generate needy people.

Folsom quotes FDR's concession of 1935 "that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber." (This is one bit of advice I wish modern Democrats would heed.) FDR's answer was to repeal the federal controls that had caused and worsened the Great Depression—we can only wish. Instead, FDR sought to nationalize various industrial projects under the WPA.

While the WPA boasted real achievements, Folsom reviews, it also fostered worthless make-work schemes. Moreover, the project became deeply politicized. Not only were the funds often directed regionally for political reasons, but individuals were "encouraged" to hold the right political views and make the right political donations to keep their tax-funded jobs.

The line about bleeding taxpayers came from Oklahoma Senator Thomas Gore, who alone voted against the WPA—and got trounced for it come election time. The country got a taste for interest-based politics.

Folsom curtly answers his main question posed as the chapter's title: "Relief and the WPA: Did They Really Help the Unemployed?" Folsom argues that, prior to the New Deal, "charity had been a state and local function." Critics will answer that the magnitude of the Depression demanded Federal action. Folsom proves that the programs were politicized; that doesn't prove they didn't also achieve their objective or that modern programs can be improved, his critics will return. Folsom rests his case with Henry Hazlitt, who points out that tax-funded projects necessarily come at the expense of the activities that otherwise would have been funded directly by those earning the money.

Public works seems to be the main part of the New Deal that President Elect Barack Obama hopes to (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1209/p09s01-coop.html) duplicate. Obama also wants to (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS200696+03-Apr-2008+BW20080403) expand forced wealth transfers to the unemployed and (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/) impose harsher wage controls (though the inflation Bush and Obama seem determined to unleash may make such wage controls superfluous).

It is inevitable that Obama's make-work programs will be politicized; his "green" program is inherently so. No doubt the regions and firms with the best political connections will get the most dollars.

Yet, despite all this, do public-works projects help the economy? It is true that widespread malinvestment—such as that encouraged by the federal government relative to mortgages—requires a period of painful readjustment. But that's not a problem that can be fixed through public works. Instead, increased federal spending—which must come from new taxes or deficits—will only divert resources critically needed elsewhere for recovery. As Folsom quotes Hazlitt, "for every public job created... a private job has been destroyed somewhere else."

(The argument that various public works are justified because they are public goods—an argument that I find defective—properly has nothing to do with trying to spend our way out of a recession.)

Poor old Gore—who was blind, it turns out—saw clearly the problem of "taxpayers... bleeding at every pore." Well, if Obama and his followers get their way, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

Comment by T. J. Welch: Is your reference to "inflation" in the fifth-to-last paragraph supposed to be "deflation"? Wage controls would be superfluous in a period of deflation, since prices would not be going up.

Comment by Ari: Not correct. In an inflationary period, wage controls (wage floors) become irrelevant at a certain point, as the inflation drives up monetary wages above the wage floors. For example, a minimum wage of $3 per hour would have had a huge impact in 1900, but today it would have practically no impact. The Inflation Calculator indicates that a minimum wage of $3 in 1900 would be the equivalent of a minimum wage of about $74 dollars now. If the minimum wage were set at $100 per hour today, it would devastate the economy, unless the money supply were expanded at least several fold (which would create all sorts of other problems). In a deflationary period—such as the Great Depression—wage controls have an especially harsh effect, because monetary wages need to come down to achieve full employment, but employers are employers are legally forbidden from negotiating lower monetary wages. (As always, we must distinguish between real and monetary wages.)

Comment by T. J. Welch: OK. I was thinking of "wage controls" in terms of Nixonian wage freezes, not wage floors.

Comment by Ari: Oh. I need to look more closely at what Nixon "accomplished." Both Hoover and FDR, though, were committed to keeping wages artificially high.

Salazar Move Could Boost GOP

December 16, 2008

Both the (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11238804) Denver Post and the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/15/ken-salazar-be-named-interior-secretary/) Rocky Mountain News are reporting that Colorado Senator Ken Salazar will become Obama's Secretary of the Interior. That's good for Salazar, and perhaps good for Colorado, but it may or may not be good for the Democratic Party of the state.

As far as I can tell, the two leading candidates to replace Salazar are his brother, Congressman John Salazar from the Western Slope, and Andrew Romanoff, Speaker of the Colorado House (who loves tax hikes).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Governor Bill Ritter named Salzar for the position, for several reasons. First, that would be the safest bet for preserving the seat for the Dems; Salazar has the name and the Western appeal. Next, that would allow Ritter to name Bernie Buescher to Congress. (Buescher, a prized Dem, was just beaten in his state house race in an upset.) I'm not aware of anybody better to fill John Salazar's shoes from the D side.

[Update: I'm wrong on that point, as somebody noted in the comments. While Ritter can appoint the Senator, he cannot appoint a House member. Ed Quillen pointed me to the Federal Constitution, which in Article I, Section 2, states, "When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the Executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

Colorado statute 1-12-201 states, "When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator from this state, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy until it is filled by election." Statute 1-12-202 states "the governor shall set a day to hold a congressional vacancy election..."

I think this fact makes it unlikely that Ritter would name John Salazar to the Senate, for, without Obama's coattails and with nervousness about one-party rule, I think the seat very likely would go Republican. But that creates the problem for Ritter of putting somebody up for Senate that the Republicans can take down in a couple years.]

That move would take Buescher out of the (http://coloradoindependent.com/17081/colorado-secretary-of-state-the-most-exciting-thing-ever) running for Secretary of State, which Ritter will fill because Mike Coffman went and got himself elected to Congress.

That leaves Ritter to choose between Andrew Romanoff and Ken Gordon, both tax-and-spend, anti-gun, Denver Dems. My vote (not that Ritter cares) is for Gordon. Even though most of his politics stink, he actually has some good ideas about running elections (though I fear he may follow the common Dem line and reduce identification requirements for voting).

The problem for Ritter is that he probably has to expose the Senate or House seat. I think John Salazar would be a strong candidate for Senate in two years. But Buescher is a proven loser in his area. I think Westerners already tire of the Democratic takeover. But any senatorial candidate but Salazar probably would invite a very strong Republican challenge.

There are several Republicans who would love a contest against the likes of Romanoff or leftie Congressional member Diana DeGette. I'm thinking of Bob Schaffer, who just lost the senatorial contest to Mark Udall; former Congressman Scott McInnis, who claims he could have beat Udall; and former governor Bill Owens. Hell, even Elway might decide he's ready for some politics. There are probably a half-dozen other Republicans who could pry the seat from a tax-and-spend Denver Dem.

Maybe Ritter will come up with a name that doesn't seem obvious to me. But so far I don't see how he can avoid putting at risk the Third Congressional or the Senate seat. Not that I'm terribly concerned about that.

Comment: Ritter doesn't get to appoint a replacement to the 3rd District of Salazar goes somewhere—they would hold a special election.

Comment by Ari: Ah, good to know. Where are the rules for that located? I imagine this will make it far less likely for Ritter to appoint John Salazar for U.S. Senate, as that would put the House seat at immediate risk.

Thank You, Energy Producers

December 16, 2008

I found the juxtaposition of these headlines currently running at the Rocky Mountain News humorous:

Sub-zero cold snaps Denver's record low temperature by 13 degrees

17 below zero at DIA; more snow on the way

Ski areas face big challenges in globally warmer world, study says

I ventured out briefly last night wearing long pants, boots, and a wool jacket and hat. I was immediately chilled. It's the kind of cold that makes your nose feel like it's freezing shut.

But I'm toasty warm. I'm listening to music and typing on the computer. My wife retrieved the mail in her toasty-warm car. Soon I'll plug in the Christmas tree lights and cook up some dinner.

I looked out my window today and noticed that four of my neighbor's houses were emitting steam from their furnace outlet pipes. Mine was going, too.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the producers of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline that made my day safe and enjoyable on this beautifully arctic day.

Rampant Irrationalism

December 17, 2008

A couple days ago I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/12/evangelicals-leverage-downturn.html) noted attendance at evangelical churches is up. Well, that's only the tip of the irrationalist iceberg. In his column yesterday, David Harsanyi (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11247217) collected various polling results showing a marked turn to the supernatural and irrational.

* "[A]ccording to a 2006 Scripps-Howard/Ohio University poll, a full third of you believe that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job."

* "[O]ne-third of Americans... believe that UFOs exist... A Newsweek poll says the number of believers is up 15 percent since the 1980s..."

* "A new Harris poll finds that 28 percent of you believe in witches and 40 percent of the public—including 46 percent of women—believe that ghosts are hovering in the so-called 'real' world. Over 20 percent of you have claimed to have actually witnessed a poltergeist."

This is in addition to the traditional nuttiness: 73 percent believe in miracles, 61 percent believe in a high demon, and 59 percent believe in hell.

The world really is haunted by demons—the demons of people's irrational and mystical beliefs.

Brook Makes Newsweek

December 17, 2008

Recently Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/173514/page/1) interviewed Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand institute. He said a number of interesting things, only a few of which I'll quote here.

For the first time I'm aware of, Brook laid primary responsibility of the current crises at the feet of the Federal Reserve. He's claimed the Fed was a major cause; here he says:

The current crisis was caused by the housing bubble, and the primary cause of the housing bubble was the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at 1 percent in 2003. They were asking people to borrow money, basically begging them. The financial problem we face today was a problem of overleverage, of too much debt—but that's exactly what Federal Reserve policy encouraged.

Newsweek claimed that "AIG's downfall was due largely to credit-default swaps." Brook replied, "There's nothing wrong with credit-default swaps. If they'd let AIG fold, we would have discovered that. There's been no problem with the credit-default swap-market to date."

Citing the CFA Institute's 2008 Derivatives and Alternative Investments, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap) explains:

A credit default swap (CDS) is a swap contract in which the buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if a credit instrument (typically a bond or loan) goes into default or on the occurrence of a specified credit event (for example bankruptcy or restructuring).

I haven't looked into why Newsweek thinks this was a key to AIG's downfall, or what role it actually played. It is clear, though, that the issue is peripheral to the mortgage meltdown.

Brook predicted renewed interest in Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged:

I think it's going to go up dramatically. I think it already has. [People] are saying, "We're heading toward socialism, we're heading toward more regulation." "Atlas Shrugged" is coming true. How do we get out? How do we escape?

Indeed, there's still plenty of time to put Atlas under the tree...

'I Haven't Read Any Statute' on Gun Shows, Buy-Back Organizer Says

December 17, 2008

The New Covenant Christian Church intends to host a gun buy-back on December 27. Volunteers with the effort also collected ten guns at or near City Park on December 6, for which they paid a total of $500, according to Pastor Reginald Holmes of New Covenant.

According to Colorado law, the event on December 6 as well as the scheduled event on December 27 qualify as gun shows, yet organizers made no indication that they followed the gun-show law on December 6 or intend to do so at the later event. Holmes said, "This is not a gun show," but he admitted, "No, I haven't read any statute" on the matter." He said he would evaluate the text of the statute and get back with me.

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/gun-show-loophole.html) reviewed, the statutes are clear on the matter. Statute 12-26.1-106 states a gun show is in operation when "not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms." A "vendor" is defined as "any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show." The statute lists no exception for later turning in the guns to the police.

The statutes further define three main requirements for gun shows. First, anyone accepting guns must undergo a background check. Second, a licensed gun dealer must be on hand to record each transaction. Third, organizers must post notice of the gun show and its background-check requirements.

Holmes talked about his goals and criticized my interpretation of the statute.

Holmes said the problem for the December 27 event is "getting enough sponsors... We've used our money up to this point, and haven't got much support from the community."

Holmes said of the December 6 event, "We had over 40 people to show up to turn guns in... We had $500 on hand, we took in ten guns," and turned them into Denver's "Manager of Safety, as well as other Denver police officers."

Holmes said that, on December 27, "there will be police officers on hand." Will the organizers pay them? "No, we're not paying them." Holmes said police "probably won't be there for the whole thing," only "for the collection" of the guns.

However, Detective Sonny Jackson said "we're not involved in that" as far as he's aware, though organizers might have spoken with a police official without his knowledge.

I should have asked Holmes who specifically he or his fellow organizers contacted on the Denver police force regarding the December 27 event, because I've now talked to two detectives who know of no police involvement with it. I asked Jackson to get back with me if he learns more information about this.

Jackson did point out that any gun turned in will be investigated. The "only agreement [with event organizers] is that we would take custody of the guns, then have them investigated and destroyed." He added that the guns would be investigated to "see if they've been used in any crime that we're looking at... basically any gun we get we investigate the weapon to see if it's been used in a crime."

I asked Jackson whether the policy of investigating the guns conflicts with the "no questions" policy of the buy-back. He said he's unsure of the exact promises made by the event's organizers, but police policy is to investigate the guns.

Because those turning in the guns are not directly investigated, there may not be any direct link between the gun and the person turning it it. However, I imagine that if the police found the gun to have been used in some crime, they would try to track it back to a purchase from a licensed dealer.

Jackson said, "I have no idea whether it's considered a gun show or not." He said he'd have to refer the question to an attorney. He asked me if I'd solicited the advice of an attorney, and I said that I was going by the plain language of the statute.

Holmes continued to describe the December 6 event: "We paid the persons for the gun. When they turned them in, they were paid $50 on the spot. People didn't get the message that the buy-back had been canceled. People showed up with a real eagerness to turn their guns in. We turned away at least 40 to 50 people, and many of them had multiple guns."

I asked Holmes if, on December 27, volunteers will take the guns, pay for them, then turn them over to police. He said, "That's the way we're hoping it will work."

Holmes said his event is not an attack on legal gun ownership: "This is a hot-button political issue. This issue is being very much misunderstood by certain members of the press, usually those from the right, those who are NRA flag wavers, who think we're attacking 2nd Amendment rights, but that's absolutely ridiculous... We're talking about getting rid of illegal weapons. We don't believe people should own guns illegally. We want all these illegal guns off the street."

I asked him what he considers to be an illegal gun. He offered this example: "If your gun is to be registered, and it is not registered." However, Coloradans don't have to register guns, though they do have to register to carry a gun concealed. (Federal law requires the registration of certain guns, such as fully-automatic ones, but I doubt that anybody will turn in a full-auto at the buy-back.)

He also said was was talking about cases in which "you have obtained it illegally." Presumably this includes things like theft and straw purchases.

I asked him whether the organizers made any effort to learn whether the ten guns collected were obtained illegally. Holmes said, "We didn't ask."

Holmes said, "We don't want people to come to this country illegally, we don't want them to drive illegally, and we don't want them to own guns illegally... Illegal guns is a problem we have nationwide. In the inner-city, we have a major problem."

On December 6, "We got 9 millimeters, we got revolvers, we got sem-automatic weapons, we got shotguns, we got all kinds of guns that people were willing to turn in."

I noted that those guns are legal to own. Holmes replied, "Sure it is. It's perfectly legal to own it, if you own it legally."

I then asked Holmes about the gun-show statutes. Is the buy-back a gun show? Holmes answered, "No. We're not doing a gun show, because they sell guns at gun shows. We're not selling guns. This is not a gun show."

I pointed out that the statute does not restrict a gun show to organizers selling guns. What about the "three gun show vendors" clause? "There are no vendors, they're citizens." Yet I pointed out that the people turning in the guns are "vendors" under Colorado law.

Holmes pointed out, "The guns do not remain in our possession, these guns are going straight to the police department. You know of any gun show that does that, you gotta let me know."

I answered that the statute makes no exception for later turning in guns to the police.

"That's your interpetation," Holmes said. He asked, "Are you an attorney?" I said I wasn't, but the language of the statute on this point is clear. It was at this point that he admitted he hasn't read the relevant statutes, though he said if I sent him a copy he'd review them.

Holmes suggested that I was not practicing journalism; I said that I'm an opinion writer, and that the applicability of the gun-show law is interesting.

Holmes said, "If you have an agenda, we need to terminate this conversation. You crossed the line, son... into interpreting the law. You're not going to waste my precious air [cell phone] time arguing about whether this is a gun show."

I risked pushing the line of questioning a bit further, and asked him whether his group intends to follow the gun-show statutes on December 27. He answered, "You are not an attorney, so to pose that kind of question, I would not even dignify that with an answer."

Did he vote for the gun-show law—Amendment 22—in 2000? He said he's not sure, as it wasn't a large issue for him.

As I am an opinion writer, I feel free to close with a personal note. Holmes seemed to take my questions about the gun show law as a personal attack, and Mike McPhee from the Denver Post also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/denver-post-reporter-omits-gun-show.html) thought my questions constituted a failure to "support" the buy-back (speaking of an agenda). But, as I explained in my answer to McPhee, my interest in the buy-back itself is peripheral.

My personal attitude is that, if the buy-back encourages a few criminals to turn in their guns and find a life of peace, that's wonderful. I imagine the surrounding attention in the community about crime will have a much greater impact than the buy-back itself. I also suspect that most or all of the guns turned in will be clunkers never used in any crime and not obtained illegally. I think the organizers ought to simply encourage criminals to turn in their weapons to the police without payment, and that the funds probably could find better uses, such as a scholarship fund.

However, if Holmes wants to buy guns and turn them into the police, that's his business, so far as I'm concerned. I opposed the gun-show law in 2000 and continue to oppose it. Nevertheless, the law clearly applies to the buy-back. I will not be surprised if somebody contorts the language to claim otherwise. Whether the law is uniformly enforced as written, or enforced only on those who don't enjoy police favoritism, strikes me as a fairly big deal. The fact that the law is absurdly broad is something I pointed out back in 2000.

Pretend Art Uglifies City

December 18, 2008

I suppose because Denver is a cow town, its residents must demonstrate to the world that they can compete with the best in erecting ugly, ridiculous mounds of crap and pretending that it's art.

I learned about the latest blob from Vincent Carroll, one of the few true artists of the city, who (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/16/carroll-the-latest-visual-insult/) describes John McEnroe's National Velvet as "a towering stack of crimson intestines, or slippery sausages, or whatever they are, plopped on a pedestal near the pedestrian bridge at Interstate 25 and Platte Street."

The cost to taxpayers? $53,000. Because, you know, it's not as though Denver is in the midst of a bona fide (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_11116207) budget emergency.

Jim on Light (http://www.jimonlight.com/tags/national-velvet/) pointed me to Joel Warner's (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2008/11/welcome_to_denver_saggyboob_el.php) list of more descriptive titles for the work: "Wet Salami," "Penis Bags," "Kidney beans," "Tower of Power," and the winner, "Saggy-Boob Electric Penis."

Just great. Denver is now home to the Saggy-Boob Electric Penis. No cows here—just high culture.

Here's (http://neighbors.denverpost.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=4970) yet another photo of it in case you just can't get enough.

Thankfully, we have (http://plusgallery.com/) Denver's Top Progressive Contemporary Art Gallery to (http://plusgallery.com/message/dec/2008) let us know what we're supposed to think of the new work:

Todays Rocky Mountain News continues the coverage with art critic Mary Chandler weighing in [on December 12]. Chandler is one of the more reasoned voices in the debate, having followed McEnroe's public and gallery work for many years...

[N]ow the famous internet site [YouTube] adds a new piece to the collection called "Biggest Dick in Denver." This of course would be relating to Plus Gallery's infamous contemporary artist who apparently knows how to swing a racket but is most widely known for his cutting edge approach to contemporary art. "National Velvet" recently drew the wrath of a local right-wing radio station and the ire of select people in the community who neither understand or appreciate public art. A good citizen of the state has decided to post a reflection on the debate that is both entertaining and thought provoking on the subject, see for yourself...

He swings quite a racket, all right.

I love the gallery's progressive attitude: if you disagree with the gallery, you're just stupid, and no explanation is either possible or necessary.

We'll start with the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prPCTYxrYlY) video. The point of the video is that people can't figure out what the piece is, so they suggest it looks like all sorts of things, while a couple of silly radio talk show hosts insisted it is a collection of penises, which supposedly says more about the radio hosts than it does about the work.

Well, it is a stretch to insist it looks like penises. The fact is that it doesn't look like anything, which is why people see similarities with various other things. But the fact that some red blob looks vaguely like a pile of kidney beans or various other things to different observers doesn't demonstrate that the blob is provocative art. It may be provocative, but so what? One can find things equally provocative-looking in any dumpster for free. What it is not is art.

I also love the gallery's self-serving conflation of "public art" with tax-funded art. Obviously the two are not the same thing at all. If some group had purchased the Ugly Red Blob with its own money and erected it outside on the group's own property, it still would have been "public art" (or at least a public display), it just wouldn't have been purchased through inherently unjust wealth transfers. The rest of us would have remained free to condemn the work esthetically, but we would have been bound to recognize the rights of its owners to purchase and display it.

Now for Chandler's article, which reminds us that the pending demise of the Rocky is not in every respect a disaster. Chandler's basic theme is that, if you reject the Blob, you're hysterical and "allergic to free-range culture." An argument like that needs no reply.

The one useful thing that Chandler contributes is a note connecting the piece to Denver's Percent for Art program. According to (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:AqG5Ne6C1koJ:www.denvergov.org/Portals/236/documents/Shan%2520Shan%2520Sheng%2520.doc+denver+percent+for+art&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari) one document I looked up, "The program directs 1% of the money used for capital improvement projects on land owned by the City & County of Denver to be applied to works of public art. Each project engages a volunteer selection panel that includes local community members, facility representatives, and arts experts."

While I'm at it, I might as well indicate some of Denver's other ugly art and artistic pretensions. Actually, The Poorest Tourist does a (http://www.guidespot.com/guides/denvers_ugliest_public_art) pretty good job of it. I had in mind particularly the piece that Tourist dubs "A Side of Fries," though his other selections are also pretty damned ugly (though most do at least fall within the category of art). (http://prairieflounder.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/haunted-horse/) Here's a much better—uh, much more vivid—picture of the ugly blue demon horse out at the airport.

No catalog of ugly Denver art is complete without special mention of Daniel Libeskind's House of Horrors (http://www.arcspace.com/architects/Libeskind/denver2/denver2.html) art museum. Some require the use of nausea medication in the building to keep from vomiting. It looks as though it were once a proper building, but a giant Samurai warrior chopped it into pieces with his giant sword, letting the pieces fall where they may. The joke is that the building is at least protected from terrorist attacks—because it already looks like it's been hit.

But remember that there is beauty in the world. After all of the above I need a good long break with (http://www.artrenewal.org/) Art Renewal.

FTC Continues Whole Foods Witch Hunt

December 18, 2008

The thugs at the Federal Trade Commission continue to flog Whole Foods for the sin of selling people groceries they want to buy. You see, the FTC thinks—strike that, pretends—that by merging with Wild Oats, Whole Foods would somehow constitute a monopoly. Yet, beyond the inherent flaws of the antitrust mentality, it is obvious to anyone who's ever been to local grocery stores that Whole Foods doesn't hold a monopoly.

Yet we can rest easy, in this time of economic trouble, knowing that the FTC is passing along millions of dollars in legal fees to people trying to buy food.

Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/16/carroll-the-latest-visual-insult/) wrote up some comments about the case a couple days ago. Ryan Puzycki does a good job (http://the-undercurrent.com/blog/whole-foods-partial-rights/) explaining the basic errors of antitrust doctrine.

My goal here is simply to point out that Whole Foods in no way holds any monopoly power over the market. In addition to the fact that the huge grocery chains such as King Soopers carry a wide variety of organic products, two markets have expanded in Colorado to compete even more directly with Whole Foods.

(http://sprouts.com/home.php) Sprouts "offers a large selection of vitamins and supplements, all natural meats, fresh seafood, bins full of bulk foods, an extensive selection of natural and organic grocery items, rBST free milk, imported cheeses, deli meats, old fashioned bakery and more." The market (http://sprouts.com/content.php?frameSrc=/locations/) has two Colorado locations open and plans to open two more.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_9238175) reported on May 13, 2008, "Natural-food and organic-produce offerings along the Front Range will expand again when Phoenix-based Sprouts Farmer's Market arrives in the fall."

(http://sfmarkets.com/) Sunflower Farmers Market—which I visited just yesterday—has open nine (http://sfmarkets.com/comap.html) Colorado stores and plans to open two more. Progressive Grocer (http://sfmarkets.com/images/PR/Progressive%20Grocer.pdf) reported on January 16, 2008, "Sunflower Farmers Market, a rapidly growing organic and natural supermarket chain based here [in Boulder], said yesterday it plans to grow its store base in Utah and Colorado this year."

And let us not forget about (http://www.vitamincottage.com/) Vitamin Cottage, yet another natural market, with its 25 (http://www.vcnfm.com/stores_all.shtml) Colorado stores and two more on the way.

The only monopoly Colorado consumers need to worry about is the FTC's monopoly on stupidity and vindictiveness.

Comment by Gideon: And I would add more fundamentally, that even if Whole Foods was the only grocery store selling such products in Colorado, it would still not be a monopoly in the sense that the FTC intends, namely a coercive monopoly. An actual monopoly is defined by the ability of the seller to be able to exclude potential or actual competitors by force. Whole Foods does not have such power. Only the government can grant such monopolies.

Bailout for Santa Claus?

December 22, 2008

The following originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081222/OPINION/812219983/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Would%20Santa%20Claus%20plead%20for%20a%20bailout%3F) published December 22 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Would Santa Claus plead for a bailout?

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

For this week's column we submit the following letter that we suspect fell out of Santa's sleigh on one of his pre-Christmas runs.

Dear Mr. President and the Congress,

You've all written me many "Dear Santa" letters, asking me to fulfill your every childhood dream. I did try to give you something meaningful each year, though many of you made the naughty list more often than I would have liked.

Now it's my turn to write you a letter. It pained me to have to hire my first American lobbyist a few years ago, Edgerton the Elf. Edgerton is a good elf, but I'm afraid he's been caught up in the bailout frenzy currently sweeping your lovely little country.

Edgerton pleaded with me to write you a letter asking for my own bailout. Can you imagine—a bailout for Santa Claus! Well, why not? It seems like everyone else is asking for a bailout on somebody else's dime. Why not me?

I am delighted to take this opportunity to explain why I oppose all bailouts.

You may wonder why I sent my elf Edgerton to Washington. It is unfortunate, shameful, even, that so many Americans treat lobbying as the practice of gaining other people's money or political advantages over their competitors.

My sole interest in keeping a lobbyist is frankly to protect myself from you. Take labor. My elves are perfectly happy to work for me, and those who wish to work elsewhere are free to do so. (I'm delighted that several of my former employees made it big in Hollywood.) Our employment arrangement is properly between us.

Yet some Americans, in a misguided desire to protect their own industries, keep trying to export the crazy American labor laws that go far beyond protecting the right to freely associate. These laws instead artificially boost the wages of some at the expense of consumers and other workers. This is among the reasons your auto producers now face the possibility of bankruptcy.

In the auto industry, executives and union members alike now want to force other Americans to hand over their money, at the cost of surrendering yet more autonomy to politicians. After all, Washington bailed out various banks and lined other pockets, so why not car makers, too?

You don't need Rudolph's nose to see where this is headed. If people who declare to be in need are able to take by political force the wealth of others, then more will figure out how to become needy, and those paying the bills will wonder why they continue to work so hard. They will even wonder why they shouldn't just throw in the mufflers and sign up for their share of the loot.

I've been around long enough to see what happens to countries that follow this course to its logical conclusion. It is the ugly spectacle of everybody trying to steal from everybody else, first under color of law, by other means later on.

Ah, but aren't I the most famous bringer of free gifts? Perhaps. But notice that they are mine to give. I have the resources and ability to do it, and I deeply enjoy it, traveling the world and keeping up with the world's children.

Also notice that I give gifts based on niceness. What is the essence of naughtiness? Here are a couple examples. This past year, little Jed from downtown—you know who you are—punched Jamie in the face for no good reason. And Steve from Fruita stole a candy bar from the market.

Naughtiness comes in many forms, but the sort I'm most concerned with is hurting other people and stealing from them, whether by force or through lies. So, I'm sorry to say, most of you politicians have made my naughty list big time this year. Taking people's things by force doesn't become nice just because you vote on it. Giving away things that don't belong to you isn't "playing Santa Claus."

I know you've been shoveling the smelly reindeer stuff about this, pretending you're doing it to "stimulate" the economy. The only things you've been stimulating are the special interests and your reelection coffers. It turns out that people don't feel very stimulated when they keep less of what they earn and see that dissipate in inflation.

If you really want to help people, then quit being naughty. Quit giving some the ability to impose their will on others through force. Protect people's rights to lead their own lives and interact with others by mutual consent.

Now I hope you'll excuse me, as there's purple smoke billowing from one of my work rooms. Remember you have free will, and it's up to you to move from the naughty list to nice. I've always found that to be a big part of Christmas wonder. Now, to all a good night.

Sincerely,
Santa Claus

Sowell Blasts Smoot-Hawley Tariff

December 23, 2008

Thomas Sowell's point about Republican Herbert Hoover's Smoot-Hawley Tariff is worth reviewing. Citing Out of Work by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, Sowell (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/12/23/another_great_depression?page=1) points out:

The Vedder and Gallaway statistics allow us to follow unemployment month by month. They put the unemployment rate at 5 percent in November 1929, a month after the stock market crash. It hit 9 percent in December-- but then began a generally downward trend, subsiding to 6.3 percent in June 1930.

That was when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, against the advice of economists across the country, who warned of dire consequences.

Five months after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the unemployment rate hit double digits for the first time in the 1930s.

This was more than a year after the stock market crash.

Both Hoover and FDR worsened the economy in a variety of other ways, but Hoover's tariff was a horrible blunder.

Sowll ends on this ominous note: "Barack Obama already has his Herbert Hoover to blame for any and all disasters that his policies create: George W. Bush."

Economic Liberty Means Prosperity

December 23, 2008

Two stories from the newspapers today suggest something interesting about the attractiveness of economic liberty.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11291907) reports:

Rollie Heath, a Boulder Democrat elected to the [State] Senate, said that as lawmakers grapple in the coming session with cutting as much as $600 million from the budget because of declining revenues, they should also look at TABOR [the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights], a revenue-capping provision of the state's constitution.

The state is in a timeout from TABOR's tax-revenue limits, but that timeout expires in 2010, when Colorado will have to begin refunding to taxpayers any revenue it collects over TABOR's prescribed limit. ...

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, who also is a member of the Committee on Job Creation and Economic Growth, shuddered at the idea.

"When did job creation become about maximizing the government's budget?" Mitchell said, "TABOR isn't constricting state revenues at all right now. When TABOR resumes, it won't cut anything.... If someone thinks that's a chokehold, they have emphysema."

It's good to see that some Republicans continue to take seriously the virtues of economic liberty.

The (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/23/colorados-ranks-still-swelling/) second story comes from the Rocky Mountain News:

Colorado may not be booming these days, but it remains among the fastest-growing states in the nation, placing third, along with Texas and North Carolina, with population growth of 2 percent.

Utah outstripped Colorado for the No. 1 spot nationwide, growing at 2.5 percent, while Arizona came in second, with growth of 2.3 percent between July 2007 and July 2008.

Still, Colorado gained 96,686 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with total population reaching 4.9 million, up from 4.8 million in July 2007.

Unlike Utah, where much of the growth comes from natural births, Colorado's surge in head count is due largely to an influx of 52,398 migrants from other states and countries, according to Robert Bernstein, a spokesman for the U.S. Census in Washington, D.C.

Is it merely coincidence that people like to move toward economic liberty? No. True, Colorado is attractive for a variety of other reasons, particularly the mountains. Yet, accounting for other variables, people tend to move toward economic liberty and away from economic political controls.

The (http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/us-economic-freedom-index-2008-report-2) U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2008 Report explains the connection. The summary states:

The net migration rate for the 20 freest states was 27.36 people per 1,000, while it was a low 1.17 people per 1,000 for the 20 most economically oppressed states. "People are moving to the freest states and fleeing the least free states as our market-based migration metric of economic freedom predicts," said Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D., director of Business and Economic Studies at PRI and director of the project. "By measuring economic freedom and studying its effects, people will gain a fuller appreciation of the important imprint it makes on the economic and political fabric of America and will encourage new state legislation that advances economic liberty." ...

South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Oklahoma rank among the top 10 most economically free states in the nation.

Unfortunately, none of the states is very free, and all suffer from a bloated federal government. So Colorado is freer only on a relative scale. But liberty ought not be graded on a curve. Individual rights deserve respect all of the time, not merely sometimes. What Colorado needs is more economic liberty and less political control of the economy.

Does Free Will Prove God?

December 24, 2008

A large portion of articles from the conservative Town Hall attempt to prove the existence of God or slam atheism. (This is yet another example of how the conservative movement is captured by the religious right.) A recent example is Ben Shapiro's (http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2008/12/18/why_atheism_is_morally_bankrupt) "Why Atheism Is Morally Bankrupt."

Here is Shapiro's argument:

[W]ithout God, there can be no moral choice. Without God, there is no capacity for free will.

Thats because a Godless world is a soulless world. Virtually all faiths hold that God endows human beings with the unique ability to choose their actions—the ability to transcend biology and environment in order to do good. Transcending biology and our environment requires a higher power—a spark of the supernatural. As philosopher Rene Descartes, put it, Although I possess a body with which I am very intimately conjoined [my soul] is entirely and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it. [A direct quote?]

Gilbert Pyle, the atheistic philosopher, derogatorily labeled the idea of soul/body dualism, the ghost in the machine. Nonetheless, our entire legal and moral system is based on the ghost in the machine—the presupposition that we can choose to do otherwise. ...

According to atheists, human beings are intensely complex machines. Our actions are determined by our genetics and our environment.

Shapiro's claim about atheists is obviously false. Many atheists reject determinism.

But notice the basic form of Shapiro's argument: "I cannot explain X as part of the natural world, therefore God exists." This argument has been repeated in many forms over the centuries. "I cannot explain [lightning, weather, causal laws, gravity, the origin of species, morality, free will] as part of the natural word, therefore God exists."

But an inability to explain something does not justify the move to Making Stuff Up. Lack of knowledge about the natural world does not demonstrate the existence of a supernatural world.

I do not pretend to have the final answer to free will. (I don't pretend to have the final answer to gravity or many other things, either.) Yet it is obviously the case that an account of free will need not invoke God, because two major theories of free will avoid doing so. Objectivists such as Leonard Peikoff argue that mechanistic causation does not exhaust the nature of causation, and that certain things in the universe—people with rational consciousness—are capable of self-causation in important ways. Others, including Daniel Dennett, make a case for compatibilism, the view that free will operates within a deterministic world. I hope to return to this issue squarely within the next couple years.

The unassailable fundamental is that we do have free will. We obviously can "choose to do otherwise." We can observe the phenomenon of choice within ourselves. The fact that science cannot explain free will with finality does not disprove free will any more than a lack of understanding about gravity allows us to float freely above the earth with no upward force. The point of science is to explain aspects of the natural world, not rationalize away their existence.

Shapiro claims that atheists cannot explain free will in the context of natural law. His solution? Conjure a God not bound by natural law. He counts his ignorance as his proof: we don't understand something, therefore, God. Yet even within that rationalistic framework Christians have struggled to explain free will. Many influential Christians were determinists. Indeed, Christianity is driven to its own form of compatibilism: God must simultaneously have perfect knowledge—including a perfect awareness of the future—and grant humans free will. Neat trick. The upshot is that Christians reject compatibilism based on a competing theory of compatibilism. But the absurdities of the supernaturalist framework are secondary: the main point is that there's no reason to accept a supernaturalist framework, and the attempt inherently defies reason.

Comment by Adam Reed: The Zeilinger interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ("A Foundational Principle for Quantum Mechanics" by Anton Zeilinger, Foundations of Physics, vol 29, p 631, April 1999) in terms of non-deterministic information-constrained entity-causation, is completely compatible with everything known about the neural substrates of human decision-making, and also completely compatible with Leonard Peikoff's elaboration of Ayn Rand's theory of free will.

Comment by Seneca the Younger: Ari, I'm pretty sure that TownHall doesn't define "conservatism." The folks there are pretty heavily Human Events style theistic conservatives, who by definition will be pretty theistic.

Comment by Kevin Clark: Adam, I hope that you blog on Zelinger one day in layman's language. This approach to free will sounds fascinating. Seneca, TownHall perfectly captures social Conservative thought which is the dominant strain of Conservatism.

Comment by Adam Reed: Kevin, In about two weeks from now. I've just had major surgery and it will take about another two weeks before I can sit down (I can type shorter messages standing up, but not an adequate explanation of the most important development in theoretical physics since Einstein.)

Six Good Paintings

December 24, 2008

Ivar Zeile of Denver's Plus Gallery wrote in to tell me that I have a narrow mind for (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/pretend-art-uglifies-city.html) failing to confuse expensive garbage with art. I thought I would take this opportunity to indicate just how narrow-minded I am when it comes to art. My view of art is so narrow, and my view of good art narrower still, that I think most of what falls under the misnomers of "abstract" or "conceptual" isn't even art, and I am drawn only to a small portion of real art works.

Here I will mention only two artists that I've recently discovered through (http://www.artrenewal.org/) Art Renewal.

Donato Giancola often paints things like book covers and trading cards in the science-fiction and fantasy genres. But his best work rises above such limitations. I love his (http://www.donatoart.com/gallery/13thhouse.html) "Mystic and Rider" and (http://www.donatoart.com/ashling.html) "Ashling" (both of which appeared on book covers). His playful (http://www.donatoart.com/gallery/museum.html) "Museum" also merits attention. (http://www.donatoart.com/portraits/cartographerp.html) "Cartographer" is a fantastic portrait, though I find the flowing maps a bit overbearing.

One thing I like about Giancola is that he is unapologetically a commercial painter. He prices his prints to sell to the general public (and indeed I purchased two). While some of his works are too tied to some particular backstory to be of general artistic interest (including his portrait of Superman), his best paintings break all such ties.

(http://duffysheridan.com/) Duffy Sheridan is perhaps the better technical artist, but his work is less accessible (literally, not as art). I asked whether prints of one of his paintings are available; I was told they weren't because of the rough economy (which struck me as a peculiar answer to economic trouble). Nevertheless, I adore his (http://duffysheridan.com/virtues/Trustworthiness.html) "Confidant." It is beautifully, vividly painted (though I doubt I'll ever get the chance to see the original). And the expression it captures! Take a look also at Sheridan's (http://duffysheridan.com/virtues/trust.html) "Trust."

What the hell—I'll brake out of my narrow artistic confines and add a seventh painting that I've long admired: Michael Newberry's (http://michaelnewberry.com/giclees/giclees.htm) "Denouement," perhaps the finest expression of romantic love ever to grace a canvas.

While these are only a few of the works of art that I love, I do want to emphasize just how extremely narrowly I direct my artistic adoration. My contempt for faux art ranges rather more broadly.

Comment by TJWelch: I suspect you may also be familiar with the artists who display at the (http://www.cordair.com/) Quent Cordair Fine Arts gallery. I am especially impressed by the technique of Han Wu Shen. Although his themes are arguably more mundane than those of some of the other artists, the detail and clarity he brings to his paintings, including human expressions, is impressive.

Comment by Uncle Fester: I admit that I enjoy contemporary abstract art, the wackier the better and I even like National Velvet. However, I hate the government using tax funds to purchase it, and will stand against it every single time. I am sure that a guy like Zeile would not like me anymore than he likes you (even though we might share a similar taste in art).

Comment by Dagny Taggart: Ari, thanks to this post, I have since purchased a giclée of Giancoli's "Cartographer" and now I just need to scrape together enough $$ to frame it (which costs an arm and a leg).

Probability and God

December 27, 2008

London atheists purchased bus (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443705,00.html) advertisements stating, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

This is a poor message on a number of levels. Christians would dispute the notion that they "worry" about God's existence; they would claim that they rejoice in God's existence. Similarly, they would argue that they enjoy their lives because of their connection with God. The advertisement suggests that that the most important aspect of God, if he existed, would be that he makes us worry and not enjoy our lives. Christians will sensibly respond that such a message says more about the atheists than it does about God.

The fundamental question is whether God exists. Here too the advertisement fails. First, if "there's probably no God," then that means God may exist. What is the probability? Is there a 20 percent chance of God? A 49.9 percent chance?

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins helped fund the advertisement. I was surprised to read the following segment from the AP's article:

Dawkins said that as an atheist he "wasn't wild" about the ad's assertion that there was "probably" no God.

[Campaign organizer Ariane] Sherine said the word was included to ensure the posters didn't breach transit advertising regulations, which stipulate ads should not offend religious people.

I don't know whether the buses in question receive tax subsidies. If not, then they are within their rights to set advertising policy. If so, then the policy constitutes government censorship.

Offhand, I don't see why religious people would take more offense at the claim that "there is no God" than the claim "there's probably no God."

However, the notion that God's existence may be subject to probabilities is absurd. A probability is a measure of human ignorance and inability to perfectly predict the future. To take the obvious examples, if I flip a coin, the probability of getting heads is one-half; if I roll a die the probability of rolling a three is one-sixth. I can know that there is a die, and I can know by testing it that its weight is evenly distributed and its sides smoothly cut.

God is something else entirely. To say "there is a probability that X exists" is to say that we know of cases in which X does exist, and cases in which X does not exist, and in a given set of circumstances X exists some fraction of the time. For example, "there's probably no beetle of a certain type living in this tree," because we've evaluated a bunch of trees and found the beetle only in a minority of them.

To talk about a probability of God existing is to take the concept outside of the context that gives it meaning.

The claim that God exists is arbitrary. It is based on no evidence, and the very concept of a supernatural God is absurd. The proper response to such a claim is to reject it, not pretend that it somehow falls within the scope of probability.

Bush Rationalizes Bailouts

December 27, 2008

George W. Bush, a terrible president in nearly every respect, continues his assault on free markets. As Patrick Buchanan (http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/12/26/george_bush,_protectionist) notes and others have verified, Bush told CNN in defense of auto bailouts, "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

But Bush never had any free-market principles to abandon. He's been one of the more statist presidents, though lagging behind the likes of Hoover and FDR, dramatically expanding the scope and power of the federal government.

Bush's statement is pragmatism on steroids: it is not merely the view that principles are unnecessary, but that they should be actively violated.

But liberty cannot be saved by violating liberty. To the degree that free-market principles are abandoned, the free-market system no longer exists. Free markets are free from the initiation of force and fraud. Free markets exist when government limits its activities to protecting people's rights to life and property. When the government forcibly takes wealth from some to redistribute to others, that is not a free market, it is a politically-controlled one.

Bush might as well say that he's committing theft to protect property or assault to protect the integrity of the victim. He might as well say he's drinking vodka to stave off drunkenness, cheating to preserve fairness, or lying to protect the truth.

The primary reason that American auto manufacturers are in trouble is that they do not function in a free-market system. They function in a system of federal manipulation of the money supply, federal manipulation of the housing supply (which has generally mucked up the economy), federal manipulation of auto production, and federal manipulation of associations.

There is only one way to save the free-market system, and that is to reinstate the principles of free markets, the principles of liberty, the principles of individual rights. By trampling free-market principles, Bush is helping to destroy the free-market system.

Ten Ways to Tell You're Not Free Market

December 28, 2008

Free markets require the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. While it's more important to talk about what free markets are, there are some obvious cases that show what they aren't. Following are a few, in no particular order. If you answer "yes" to the any of the following questions, you don't support the free market.

1. You endorse protective tariffs.

2. You support antitrust laws.

3. You support censorship—i.e., government restrictions on speech—of any kind.

4. You think something (such as a retirement fund) is "privatized" if politicians require its purchase and set the terms by which it's purchased.

5. You think the goal of raising net tax revenues justifies cutting tax rates.

6. You advocate forcing people to purchase health insurance.

7. You believe there are cases in which we must "abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

8. You advocate corporate welfare.

9. You advocate welfare—i.e., the forced redistribution of wealth—for the poor.

10. You think an "ownership society" justifies political intervention in the economy.

Obviously, these ten points are directed mostly at conservatives who pretend to support free markets while working to further socialize the economy. The left is so openly hostile to free markets that a ten-point list is rather beside the point.

Comment by Uncle Fester: I would add one that might be more controversial: 11. You support laws restricting the freedom of movement among people via immigration restrictions.

Forman on Slavery and Abortion

December 29, 2008

In an October (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/15/forman-history-shows-fault-pro-choice/) article, Robert Forman, like many evangelicals, compares abortion to slavery:

Slave owners and those who were in the slave trade were unapologetically pro-choice when it came to slaves and slavery. They felt that "if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave"—but leave the "right" for those who do desire to own slaves to be able to own slaves. That's very similar to the "if you don't like abortions, don't have one"—but leave the "right" for those who do want an abortion to be able get an abortion.

Forman is ignoring one minor distinction: a slave is a person, while a fertilized egg is not. Notably, in his entire article, Forman makes no effort to show that that an embryo is a person. You'd think that somebody so concerned about the alleged evils of abortion would try to do that.

Perhaps in his next article Forman would care to answer the arguments made by Diana Hsieh and me (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) demonstrating that personhood begins at birth.

There is a useful comparison to be made between slavery and abortion bans, in that both violate the rights of people. Diana and I make (http://seculargovernment.us/oped/2008-10-09.html) that case as well.

Liebowitz Explains Mortgage Meltdown

December 29, 2008

Stan J. Liebowitz of the Independent Institute wrote a (http://independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=30) paper this last fall titled, "Anatomy of a Train Wreck: Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown." He summarizes (on page 4):

[M]ortgage underwriting standards had been undermined by virtually every branch of the government since the early 1990s. The government had been attempting to increase home ownership in the U.S., which had been stagnant for several decades. In particular, the government had tried to increase home ownership among poor and minority Americans. Although a seemingly noble goal, the tool chosen to achieve this goal was one that endangered the entire mortgage enterprise: intentional weakening of the traditional mortgage-lending standards.

After the government succeeded in weakening underwriting standards, mortgages seemed to require virtually no down payment, which is the main key to the problem, but few restrictions on the size of monthly payments relative to income, little examination of credit scores, little examination of employment history, and so forth also contributed. This was exactly the government's goal. ...

The increase in home ownership increased the price of housing, helping to create a housing "bubble." The bubble brought in a large number of speculators in the form of individuals owning one or two houses who hoped to quickly resell them at a profit. Estimates are that one quarter of all home sales were speculative sales of this nature. ... Once housing prices stopped rising, these speculators tried to get out from under their investments made largely with other peoples' money, which is why foreclosures increased mainly for adjustable-rate mortgages and not for fixed-rate mortgages, regardless of whether mortgages were prime or subprime.

Liebowitz goes a long way in explaining the economic problems in which we find ourselves. One lesson to be learned is that "owernship" ought not be confused with a free market. Ownership via voluntary transactions is wonderful; ownership through political force is dangerous.

Polls and Abortion

December 30, 2008

Back on September 28, Rasmussen conducted a (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/state_toplines/colorado/toplines_colorado_presidential_election_september_28_2008) poll that covered Colorado's Amendment 48:

In November Amendment 48 entitled "Definition of a Person" will be on the ballot. This amendment to the Colorado constitution defines a person a s-- "any human being from the moment of fertilization". If the election were held today would you vote for or against this amendment?

39% For
50% Against
11% Not sure

Do you believe that life begins at conception, or at birth, or somewhere in between?
41% At conception
22% At birth
33% Somewhere in between
4% Not sure

Support for the measure dropped by the election; only 26.7 percent of voters (http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/amendment/2008/48-definition-of-person/) favored the measure.

What is extraordinary is that the measure did not receive a passing vote in a single county. In El Paso county, home of Focus on the Family, the measure got 37.6 percent of the vote.

Unfortunately, the poll reinforced the fallacy that the measure had something to do with when "life begins." Amendment 48 said nothing about when "life begins." And the poll includes no correct answer to the question anyway. As Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) pointed out, life precedes conception; both the sperm cell and egg are alive. Life is an unending chain spanning back billions of years. The relevant question is not when life begins—everyone grants a fertilized egg is alive—but when personhood begins.

Attorney General Bilks Drug Producer

December 30, 2008

Tillie Fong (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/30/12-million-to-state-in-drug-settlement/) reports:

Colorado will get $1.2 million from a national settlement with Cephalon Inc., after the pharmaceutical company was accused of marketing and promoting three drugs for "off-label" use.

The announcement by the Colorado attorney general's office Monday said the money will be used to reimburse the state Medicaid system. ...

While it is legal for doctors to prescribe Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for off- label use, drug companies are not allowed to market or promote directly their drugs for such purposes.

Is there any claim that Cephalon's advertisements were fraudulent? No. Is there claim that Cephalon has acted negligently? None that I'm aware of. (I checked the AG's web page and found no media release on the matter.)

So this company has been punished for advertising its products and selling them to willing customers. Doing business is now often a crime in the United States.

These restrictions are a violation of the company's rights of free speech, property, and association.

While often the attorney general's office does important work protecting people's rights, in this case it has helped violate people's rights and undermined the proper purpose of government.

Let us say that a company does act fraudulently or negligently. Is there a proper government role in such cases? Yes! There is a role for both criminal fraud and criminal negligence. However, the more important role for government is to provide the legal context for tort. That is, people should be able to sue a company for fraud or negligence. Now, torts should be restricted such that companies may not be punished for unforeseeable harms or for transactions in which customers voluntarily accept risk.

But in no case would fraud or negligence justify the government transferring wealth from the company at fault to a welfare program! Instead, any damages should go directly to the victims. (Whether a state welfare agency decides to pay for certain drugs for certain purposes is a different issue, and not one that justifies legally punishing drug producers.)

In this case, though, there were no victims—except for the company itself and its customers.

Comment by Jim: I have been planning to start on my MBA next fall; however, this post has me thinking...should I do law instead? Really, as it is becoming increasingly illegal to engage in business, why invest in an MBA? Although I am not likely to change my mind, such governmental malfeasance gives me pause to reconsider.

Objective Standard Versus New Atheists

December 31, 2008

Appropriately, it was not the Christians who devastated the so-called New Atheists, but the Objectivists.

In his (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mystical-ethics-new-atheists.asp) article for The Objective Standard, "The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists," Alan Germani reviews the ethical theories of Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins.

In brief, Hitchens holds that ethical knowledge is innate and Harris clings to intuitionism, while Dennett and Dawkins turn to evolutionary programming. The first set of ideas collapse to personal subjectivism, while the evolutionary claims collapse to social subjectivism. For details and key quotations, please read Germani's entire article.

The Christian critics of the New Atheists point out, quite correctly, that without God they are unable to formulate an objective ethics. Of course, with God all the Christians can formulate is an ethic that combines deistic, social, and personal subjectivism. Ultimately, it is a grand clash of subjectivists of different stripes.

What is needed is a morality rooted not in the alleged pronouncements of God, nor in the arbitrary pronouncements of men, nor in the alleged insights of some inner sense or intuition. Instead, we need a truly objective morality rooted in the facts of human life.

Job Killer

December 31, 2008

We are in a rough economy. More people are losing their jobs. Some businesses are having a hard time making it. Therefore, obviously, this is a great time for the automatic increase to Colorado's minimum wage, ensuring that the least-skilled, youngest people looking for a job will have a harder time finding one.

As the AP (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/31/colorados-minimum-wage-increase-26-cents/) reports, the minimum wage will go up to $7.28, and to $4.26 for tipped employees, tomorrow.

Of course, the real minimum wage is zero, and that is the wage that more entry-level workers will now be receiving, thanks to Colorado's "progressive" community. But, hey, the progressives will be there to save the poor unemployed with food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

Thankfully, the kids of yuppy "progressives" can continue live off their parents as they work for free as interns, thereby "exploiting" themselves into high-paying jobs later on.

Comment by Allen: I don't know what the problem is. Ritter's already created 90,000 green jobs. They're all great jobs that provide more than a living wage. He can just go out and create some more if we need them. . . . now please excuse me while I go pull my tongue out of my cheek.

Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use