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

Ari Armstrong's 2009 Posts

Following are consolidated blog posts I wrote in 2009, republished here on August 16, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. I may not in every case still agree with my 2009 position. Paragraphs that begin "Comment" are notes by readers, unless marked otherwise. Because so many of the hyperlinks have since become "dead," I removed almost all of 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.

Major topics include the Food Stamp Challenge, beer sales in grocery stores and the "beer smash challenge," Ari's Sam Adams Alliance award, the Tea Party, the mortgage meltdown, the stimulus, the New Deal, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, atheism and religion, Bill Ritter, Barack Obama, corporate and tourism welfare, movies, abortion, Colorado politics, homosexuality, Tom Woods, Social Security, Scott McInnis, Sonia Sotomayor, health policy, rationing, environmentalism, antitrust, FTC blogging rules, Ralph Carr, ebooks, Dan Maes, and personal notes.

The Link Between Poverty and Poor Diet

January 2, 2009

The Denver Post is quite right to (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11351470) claim, "It's no coincidence that some of the heaviest people typically have the worst diets—sugary soda for breakfast, fast food and convenience store cuisine."

The problem is that the Post wants to put federal bureaucrats in charge of nutrition. But the federal government has been a big part of the problem by pushing out voluntary food banks in favor of tax-funded food stamps. The proper solution is to reverse course, not bureaucratize health.

The Post points out, "Obese people frequently develop chronic ailments that all of us end up paying for, either through increased health care premiums or through tax dollars for government-subsidized health care." Again these are problems caused by politicians. The reason that insurance rates go up is that in many cases politicians force the healthy to subsidize the careless via mandated coverage. And obviously "government-subsidized health care" is a politically-generated problem.

Unsurprisingly, "Low-income people have the highest rates of obesity and are more likely to have a poor diet and suffer from inadequate exercise."

This begins to uproot the problem. The problem is not that poverty causes poor health, at least not in this country, at least not usually. The problem is that irresponsible choices cause both poverty and poor health. Obviously there are many exceptions, but that's the general trend.

The Post makes two implausible claims: "Highly processed, nutritionally bereft food typically is cheaper than fresh foods. Furthermore, some urban areas don't have full-service supermarkets, leaving those without transportation unable to buy healthy food."

On the second point, perhaps the Post would care to point out a single neighborhood in the entire Denver Metro area that lacks easy access to a "full-service supermarket." Those who do live relatively far from a market most often have bus access or carpooling friends. The fundamental problem is not lack of access to good food, but lack of will to eat it.

And it is not generally true that "highly processed" food is cheaper that "fresh foods." Sure, if we're talking about bags of flour and white rice, those are cheap. But earlier the Post said the problem was soda and fast food. I would add to the list processed cereals and snacks. It would be interesting to see the ratio of food stamps spent on pricey junk rather than healthy food.

Right now I have a cupboard full of squash that I purchased at a regular grocery store on a regular sale at 50 cents per pound. I just purchased a luscious head of green lettuce for 88 cents, also on regular sale. Turkeys have been on sale for less than a dollar per pound. The regular price of whole chickens is 99 cents per pound. I regularly pay two dollars per gallon of marked-down organic milk, and the regular price for the low-end brand is $2.49.

The problem is not that healthy food costs more than junk food; typically junk food costs more. The problem is that many poor people choose to buy the more-expensive junk food, and the federal government helps them do it with our tax dollars.

But apparently the Denver Post's answer to junk food is junk journalism.

Palin's Anti-Abortion Allies

January 3, 2009

Before the election, I discovered a (http://www.alaskarighttolife.org/mission/AKRightToLife_1_08.pdf) document from Alaska Right to Life. An article by Bob Bird, former president of the organization, deserves a look:

Well, what do the federal courts and presidents have to do with Alaska? Simply this: these erroneous attitudes have trickled down into the state level as well. Listening to our pro-life legislators, lawyers and governor lament and berate the latest 3-2 Alaska Supreme Court decision striking down the "Parental Consent" law is praiseworthy—yet every one of them fail to realize that no court's opinion need be obeyed. ...

Scan both the federal and state constitutions until you go blind, and you will not find any provision requiring the chief executive to enforce court opinions. Indeed, the executive's opinion is clearly superior to the courts', as the constitution (either state or federal) must be defended, even from those other members of different branches of the government who wish to usurp the limits placed on their powers. ...

[A] pro-life Congress could pass a statute removing the court's jurisdiction on human life cases. ...

[P]assing a constitutional amendment is admitting that the Supreme Court indeed has the right to sweep away state laws. This is a dangerous admission, for the courts have absolutely no such right. ...

Governor Palin and the others asked for public support. Indeed, they deserve it, for their hearts are in the right place, if not their heads. The support they need is a massive flood of POM's, e-mails and letters, telling them to give the state Supreme Court a message: "You've made your opinion. Now try to enforce it!"

Bird's position is extraordinary. He is claiming that governors are not bound by state courts and that the president is not bound by the Supreme Court. He is claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment offers no protection from state tyranny. Bird's position implies that the president need not abide by any of the Supreme Court's rulings regarding any part of the Bill of Rights. Ultimately Bird would throw out the separation of powers on which our nation is built and open the door to dictatorship.

Does anyone wish to claim that the politics of this faction of the ant-abortion movement are remotely compatible with liberty?

Comment by Jim: A, It gets worse. This idea of legislative and executive overriding judicial efforts to protect individuals rights is an explicit point in Newt Gingrich's 21st Century Contract with America. From his book _Winning the Future_ (pp83-4), Gingrich calls for 1) litmus tests for Senators and judges so that they must agree with his definition of the role of God in government, 2) legislative clauses that deny individuals the right to challenge the constitutionality of statutes in court, 3) impeachment of judges who undermine the authority of the legislative and executive branches, and 4) state legislative resolutions demanding Congress and the President check the power of such judges.

Congress Against the Economy

January 3, 2009

The New Clarion (a nice new online publication) (http://www.newclarion.com/2008/12/killing-the-golden-goose/) pointed to a recent (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990472028925207.html) article by Michael Malone lamenting the federal roadblocks to entrepreneurship:

From the beginning of this decade, the process of new company creation has been under assault by legislators and regulators. ...Congress, the SEC and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have piled burdens onto the economy that put entrepreneurship at risk.

The new laws and regulations... have managed to kill the creation of new public companies in the U.S., cripple the venture capital business, and damage entrepreneurship. According to the National Venture Capital Association, in all of 2008 there have been just six companies that have gone public. Compare that with 269 IPOs in 1999, 272 in 1996, and 365 in 1986.

Faced with crushing reporting costs if they go public, new companies are instead selling themselves to big, existing corporations. ...

For all of this, we can first thank Sarbanes-Oxley. Cooked up in the wake of accounting scandals earlier this decade, it has essentially killed the creation of new public companies in America... and cost U.S. industry more than $200 billion by some estimates.

So, while the modern economic mess was primarily caused by federal encouragement of risky loans, Congress has "helped" to destroy productivity in other ways as well. (For some additional examples, see Veronique de Rugy's (http://www.reason.com/news/show/130328.html) article for Reason.)

Notice also that, even as the federal government prevents sensible mergers that would take advantage of economies of scale and better management (as (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/ftc-continues-whole-foods-witch-hunt.html) with Whole Foods), in other ways the federal government encourages uneconomic conglomeration.

America's politicians may yet be able to push the nation into another Great Depression.

Sirota and the New Deal

January 4, 2009

David Sirota (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11346152) praises the New Deal in an article for the Denver Post.

Sirota devotes the majority of his article to ad hominem attacks, empty assertions, and appeals to authority. Sirota starts on the wrong food by tagging critics of the New Deal as "conservative," even though many critics of the New Deal are not conservatives and many conservatives praise FDR. Sirota refers to criticism of the New Deal as "abject insanity," "ridiculous," and "not... remotely serious." He claims that "mainstream economists" laud modern bailouts, " the vast majority of Americans think the New Deal worked well," and professional historians agree the New Deal was swell.

What Sirota scrupulously avoids is any evaluation of the arguments and claims made by critics of the New Deal.

Sirota claims that the economy grew, and unemployment fell, during FDR's first two terms. But this ignores a number of critical facts. Critics of the New Deal lambast not only FDR but his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, who destroyed the economy with his tariffs, wage controls, and other economic controls. Critics of the New Deal also point out that Federal Reserve policy played a major role in causing and prolonging the Great Depression.

FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933. I reviewed the basic unemployment figures of the era (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/yes-fdr-made-depression-worse-and.html) back in October. The unemployment rate in 1929 was 3.2 percent. By 1932, it was 23.6 percent. Unemployment hit its peak in 1933, the year FDR took office, at 24.9 percent. So Sirota's point, then, is because FDR did not manage to throw more than a quarter of the nation's population out work, he was therefore a great president whose policies are vindicated. However, FDR never oversaw remotely normalized employment rates prior to the WWII. From 1931 through 1940, the lowest unemployment reached was 14.3 percent in 1937. And this is the basis on which we are to praise FDR?

Sirota does manage to slip in two arguments among his logical fallacies. The first pertains to the worsening conditions of 1937 and 1938:

[T]he right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. ... [T]he fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them.

As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

Notably, Sirota declines to specify which "cut spending" might plausibly have harmed the economy.

Meanwhile, Sirota ignores the major causes of the economic problems of those years, specifically wage controls and constrictive Federal Reserve policies.

Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway write in their book, Out of Work:

The Wagner Act [of 1935] provided the stimulus for several AFL unions to form the CIO in order to organize the mass-production industries. Significant organization attempts did not begin until the end of 1936. In the first half of 1937, the major automobile companies, excepting Ford, capitulated and recognized the United Auto Workers. Other important industries, most notably steel, were either unionized (U.S. Steel) or avoided unionization by paying union-scale wages. (Page 139, footnote omitted)

Using regression analysis, the authors estimate that, during 1937 and 1938, unionization increased the unemployment rate by about five percent (page 141). The authors also note that Social Security, passed in 1935, also increased the cost of labor and thereby increased unemployment (page 141).

The authors acknowledge that, in 1937, income tax receipts were up "at a time when absolute federal spending was declining" and "the federal deficit contracted sharply" (page 143). Let us grant that it's stupid to raise taxes during a depression. It is true that changes in federal spending can harm the economy, simply because many businesses must adjust their behavior accordingly, and that takes time. But the notion that less forced wealth redistribution somehow damages the economy is absurd. Sirota commits the basic eonomic fallacy of looking at the seen—the government spending—and ignoring the unseen—the business activities that don't exist because resources are forcibly transferred away from them. So Sirota's story of the economic troubles of 1937 and 1938 doesn't bear scrutiny.

On the other hand, there is a straightforward and obvious link between wage controls and unemployment. Especially during a time of (federally induced) deflation, artificially high wages are disastrous. They artificially increase the monetary wages of some at the expense of throwing others—in the case of the Great Depression, many others—out of work.

Sirota's second argument is that (even) Milton Friedman praised "the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation." But critics of the New Deal point out that the Federal Reserve is a major cause of the Great Depression to begin with. So let us put Sirota's claim in context.

Vedder and Gallaway point out:

Monetary policy was clearly restrictive. On three occassions between August 1936 and May 1937, the Federal Reserve Board raised reserve requirements, flexing new regulatory muscle provided by the Banking Act of 1935. The doubling of reserve requirements led banks to scramble for reserves, and to rebuild previously existing excess reserves. This, to monetarists such as Milton Friedman, led to a decline in the stock of money and a resulting economic contraction. (Page 144)

Again, contractive monetary policy plus heightened wage controls is a bad mix.

Perhaps in a future article Sirota would care to actually enter the debate rather than restrict his discussion to name-calling, platitudes, and appeals to authority. FDR's policies demonstrably worsened the Great Depression caused by Hoover and the Federal Reserve. The sort of economic ignorance promoted by Sirota only threatens to subject the modern economy to similar turmoil.

Shut Down Corporate Welfare for Tourism

January 5, 2009

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090105/COLUMNISTS/901049991/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Shut%20down%20corporate%20welfare%20for%20tourism) appeared in the January 5, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press. Additional links and notes are provided here.

Shut down corporate welfare for tourism

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Does Colorado need corporate welfare to promote tourism? The Denver Post argues in a December 28 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11310365) editorial that, in this time of economic trouble, state legislators should continue to forcibly transfer your money to bureaucrats to spend on tourism advertising.

However, such corporate welfare is inherently unjust and economically wasteful, and now is the perfect time for the legislature to eliminate it.

The proper purpose of government is to protect people's rights of property and voluntary association. Corporate welfare violates rights by forcing some to subsidize the business of others.

Colorado's constitution rightly bans corporate welfare. Article XI, Section 2, states, "Neither the state, nor any county [etc.] shall make any donation or grant to, or in aid of... any corporation or company..."

Article V, Section 25, prevents the state legislature from "granting to any corporation... any special or exclusive privilege." And Article V, Section 34, states, "No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state..."*

Not only does corporate welfare for tourism violate the state's constitution, it defies economic sense. Bureaucrats who spend tax dollars have poor incentives to spend the money wisely. Businesses that fund their own advertising, on the other hand, tend to look harder at results.

If the Denver Post were correct about the benefits of tourism advertising, that would prove only that businesses that benefit should fund the advertising on their own. Most other businesses advertise without drawing on tax dollars.

Why should politicians advertise for only certain businesses and not others? If putting politicians and bureaucrats in charge of advertising is such a great idea, why don't we let bureaucrats handle everybody's advertising? Central planning by bureaucrats is the best way to run the economy, right?

The Denver Post ignores the general problems of corporate welfare, and the paper makes ludicrous claims about the benefits of the tourism subsidies.

The Post argues that, because tourism spending dipped during a recession, that somehow proves that corporate welfare was responsible for the subsequent rise of tourism. But might we surmise that more prosperous times were the cause?

The Post reports, "State tourism director Kim McNulty tells us studies show that, for every dollar the state spends to promote itself to tourists, it makes back more than $13."

And what are these "studies?" The Post declines to name them. McNulty told us in an e-mail that "the study that was quoted in the Denver Post article... is a study that Longwoods International did for the Colorado Tourism Office."

The (http://www.longwoods-intl.com/) web page of Longwoods International shows that this Canadian company (http://www.longwoods-intl.com/client_case_studies.html) conducts "Budget Justification" for a variety of government agencies. (http://www.longwoods-intl.com/funding.html) Back in 1986, "The Colorado Tourism Board (CTB) hired Longwoods to conduct an image study as input into a new advertising campaign." In 2002-03, "Longwoods was hired to measure the Return on Investment of the campaign [at that time], which information would be used to help secure future funding."

So do you get the idea of how this works? Colorado bureaucrats spend tax dollars to hire a Canadian company to provide "justification" of the bureaucrats' budget and to "help secure future funding" for those bureaucrats. Surprise, surprise, those are the results that Longwoods delivers.

We asked McNulty via e-mail and phone message how much the state spent on the latest study. Unfortunately, we did not hear back from McNulty by deadline.** So another thing we have not been able to ask her is how many tax dollars her office spends on salaries, supplies, and facilities.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics can tell that Longwoods' claims about the returns on tax dollars are bogus. You can find the study at (http://www.colorado.com/ai/LongwoodsColoradoAdvertisingEvaluation2007.pdf). Longwoods works from survey data that simply cannot demonstrate what Longwoods claims they can.

Longwoods asked people whether they were "aware" of the tourism ads and whether they traveled to Colorado. But this confuses cause and effect. It is not the case that, in a random sample of the population, some people become aware of the ads and because of that decide to travel to Colorado. Instead, people already keen on traveling to Colorado are more likely to become aware of Colorado-specific advertising. Similarly, if you're planning to buy a new Volkswagen, you start seeing Volkswagens everywhere.***

Based on this flawed methodology, Longwoods makes the wildly implausible claim that each advertising dollar generates $193 of "visitor spending" and $13 of "total taxes returned." What would you think if somebody offered to take your money, promising to return nearly 200 times the revenues? We'd expect such an offer to arrive in an e-mail from the widow of Prince Sajutamiwa from the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Sadly, the Denver Post cited the same sort of bogus claims back in 2006.**** Hopefully our legislators will display a bit less credulity than these editorial writers and take the tourism industry off the dole.

* Dave Kopel listed these three sections in a 1996 (http://www.davekopel.com/Media/OpEds/op061796.htm) article.
** McNulty replied regarding the cost of the study on January 5 at around 3:30. She writes via e-mail, "I was out of the office and was not able to respond until today. The contract amount for the Advertising Effectiveness, Image Benchmarking and Return on Investment survey was $122,000. This is not a study we do every year."
*** Paul Hsieh provided the Volkswagen example.
**** The Denver Post's editorial was dated June 11, 2006. For additional background on Colorado's corporate welfare for tourism, see (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/10/IP_8_2005_d.pdf) "Wasteful Spending by Colorado Government," page 12; (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/062206.html) "Corporate Welfare"; (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/06/taxesfortourism.html) "Taxes for Tourism: Further Reflections"; and (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/072006.html) "Intel Inside."

Comment by dean0: Agreed! The state has no business advertising itself as a "playground" for the rich and famous....Those of us who live and work here have to foot the tax bill and then have to pay increased costs in ticket lines because these entities want to discourage the "rabble" from frequenting their areas.

Comment by Ari: I have nothing against tourism advertising, just tax-funded tourism advertising.

Wage Controls Past and Present

January 5, 2009

The Denver Post's William Porter (http://www.denverpost.com/porter/ci_11351488) thinks it's "good news" that Colorado's minimum wage is going up in this time of economic trouble. But the effect of wage controls is to throw some people out of work, in this case some of those with the least experience trying to gain a foothold in the job market.

This past Wednesday I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/job-killer.html) lamented the automatic increase in Colorado's minimum wage. Yesterday I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirota-new-deal-and-wage-controls.html) discussed some aspects of wage controls during the Great Depression. Here I discuss more of the background of wage controls as reviewed by Burton Folsom in his book, New Deal or Raw Deal?

Folsom notes that Congress imposed a minimum wage on Washington, D.C. in 1918 (page 113). The law required women to be paid $71.50 per month. The result? Congress Hall Hotel fired Willie Lyons, a woman working as an elevator operator for $35 per month, and hired a man for the same price. What a great way to help women.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected the law, upholding the right "to freely contract with one another in respect of the price for which one shall tender service to the other in a purely private employment where both are willing, perhaps anxious, to agree."

Folsom notes that wage controls were built into National Recovery Act codes until they were judiciously struck down in 1935 (page 114). Then in 1938 Congress passed a national minimum wage (page 114-15). The intent of the law was protectionism of New England industries, which were losing jobs to the lower-cost South.

The same year saw a return of the minimum wage in Washington, D.C. Folsom reviews, "Immediately after its passage, the Washington Post lamented, scores of maids and unskilled workers were laid off by local hotels" (page 115).

Folsom also discusses the fact that Social Security increased the cost of labor, also contributing to unemployment (page 116). Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway argue in Out of Work, "[N]early 1.2 million people were added to the unemployment rolls by 1938 because of the increases in labor costs associated with social insurance programs" (page 141).

Folsom, like Vedder and Gallaway, reviews too the harmful effects of union laws (pages 119-121).

Labor is not exempt from the laws of supply and demand. When wage controls push wages above their market rates, the result is unemployment. When politicians try to force businesses to pay employees more than they contribute, the result is that businesses fire people or decline to hire them. And yet we have Colorado "news" columnists proclaiming that wage controls are "good news."

UPDATE: I have reviewed as much of Folsom's book as I intend to. Following are links to previous articles on the Great Depression.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/yes-fdr-made-depression-worse-and.html) Yes, FDR Made Depression Worse and Longer

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/politicians-caused-and-worsened-great.html) Politicians Caused and Worsened the Great Depression

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/folsom-reviews-fdrs-errors.html) Folsom Reviews FDR's Errors

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/how-hoover-and-fdr-damaged-agriculture.html) How Hoover and FDR Damaged Agriculture

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/taxpayers-bleeding-at-every-pore.html) 'Taxpayers... Bleeding at Every Pore'

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirota-new-deal-and-wage-controls.html) Sirota and the New Deal

Buy a Carbon Monoxide Detector

January 6, 2009

Kirk Mitchell reports that "faulty repairs to a boiler vent" leading to carbon monoxide poisoning may have caused the death of a 23 year old University of Denver Student. Horrible. Mitchell also points out that five other Coloradans have died of carbon monoxide in the last few weeks.

However, the appropriate response is not for the legislature to require carbon monoxide detectors, as some have (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11190672) argued. It is simply not a proper legislative function.

Instead, individuals should take it upon themselves to purchase carbon monoxide detectors for their homes. I bought one for mine. The cost is trivial compared to the risk it averts. I urge readers to buy one for their homes. If mortgage companies or insurance companies required their installation prior to loan approval, that might also make sense.

Where the property of others is concerned, the matter is properly one of torts. If investigation sustains the claim that faulty repairs caused the recent death, whatever company is responsible is probably looking at a massive law suit. I'm sure the family's lawyers will also evaluate whether the apartment complex in question did anything negligently. It is indeed a shame that two failures—faulty repairs and lack of a detector—seem to have caused the death. If I were a member of the victim's family, I would seek to sue anyone actually at fault and do whatever I could to spread the story in the media to help educate the public.

It is tempting to claim "there ought to be a law" to solve any given problem. But often new laws don't solve the problem, or they generate other problems, and the answer lies beyond the legislature. Politicians are not there to do everything for us. They are properly there to protect liberty, property rights, and the rule of just law. The rest is up to us.

Martin on America's Founding: Jefferson and Madison

January 7, 2009

William Martin has written a series of short articles for Opposing Views countering claims that America is a Christian nation.

In his (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/jefferson-madison-and-the-separation-of-church-and-state) article on Jefferson and Madison, Martin recounts the story of Jefferson's Bill to Establish Religious Freedom. Jefferson argued, among other things, that people should not be forced to support religion and there should be no religious test for public office. Jeffersons' bill failed in Virginia in 1779, Martin notes, but passed in 1786.

And here's what Martin has to say about Madison:

Madison was not concerned solely with oppression. Government support of religion, he insisted, would lead inevitably to the corruption and weakening of religion itself. Fifteen centuries of governmental entanglement with Christianity had made clear that neither institution benefited from the relationship. He noted that ecclesiastical establishments "have [in some instances] been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.... A just government... will be best supported by... neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."

If the claim that America is a Christian nation reduces to the claim that most Americans have adhered to the Christian religion, then the claim is trivial. If the claim is that America was founded to promote Christianity, then the claim is false.

Comment by Daniel: Great blog! Just a few points I'd love to hear your take on: I think there have been from the start certain Christian elements in the Founding of the US--and these have grown over time (especially within the government). While many new Objectivists ignore these factors, or treat them lightly--which in some cases they deserve to be, as they were not fundamental to the Founding--I think it's important to acknowledge the Christian element. The main reason is that it is there, but it also allows you to explain the growing influence of Christianity (especially after the second Great Awakening) and its effect on the politics of America (a host of insane regulations, especially in the American south). Anyway, will have to start coming here more. Just started a couple blogs of my own--(http://systemicallyimportant.blogspot.com/) Systemically Important and (http://thenearbypen.blogspot.com/) The Nearby Pen--so I'm trying to get back in the mix of things. And get others coming to the sites. Cheers,

Religious Findings from Pew

January 7, 2009

I was checking out Pew's (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports) survey results today, and I thought I'd summarize some of the interesting findings.

Nearly 4 of 5 people (78.4 percent) are Christian. Half of Americans are Protestants (51.3 percent), and a fourth are evangelical Protestants (26.3 percent). A fourth are Catholic (23.9 percent).

The same fraction of Americans—1.6 or 1.7 percent—are Mormon, Jewish, or atheist.

Most people of all American religions, except Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, think "many religions can lead to eternal life." That's a little bit funny, because that means most Mormons believe that 98.3 percent of the nation is not headed for eternal life, while most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 99.3 percent of the nation is doomed. I suppose small sects have to be particularly strident in order to retain followers.

Some people seem to be confused, because Pew claims that 21 percent of Atheists believe in God, and 6 percent of atheists believe in a "personal God." Huh.

71 percent of the population claims they are "absolutely certain" that God exists. Not surprisingly, only 41 percent of Jews are so certain.

"Only" 56 percent of the population claims "religion is very important in their lives," while 39 percent "attend religious services at least once a week."

Comment by Kevin: My first thought is astonishment at how people can be so disintegrated. If 71 percent are certain that God exists how could any one of them say that religion is not important in their lives. My astonishment of course assumes that ideas and consistency matter, which probably isn't consciously held as important by many of the respondents.

Comment by Ryan: Maybe some "atheists" consider themselves only atheistic towards the Christian god and that's enough for them. For example, where would deists fit in that survey? I suspect some of them just called themselves atheists.

Three for Freedom

January 7, 2009

Paul Hsieh (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p09s01-coop.html) writes for the Christian Science Monitor:

... Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a 'nanny state on steroids' antithetical to core American principles. ...

Please help the good doctor earn the widest possible audience.

Next, Brian Schwartz has a nice (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jan/03/from-the-editorial-advisory-board/) piece from January 3 in Boulder's Daily Camera:

[Y]ou cannot walk away from an elected politicians who claim "we're all in it together." Politicians "bring people together" with legislation. If you peacefully refuse to cooperate with such legislated "togetherness," you're a criminal and can end up in prison.

Finally, the Denver Post published my (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/01/06/economic-grief-started-with-hoover-not-fdr/) letter critical of Hoover and FDR:

... [N]o critic of the New Deal claims the trouble started with FDR. Instead, Republican Herbert Hoover helped launch the Depression with his horribly destructive tariffs and wage and price controls. And the Federal Reserve destabilized the money supply.

FDR inherited unemployment nearing 25 percent, and it never fell below 14 percent through 1940. Hopefully Barack Obama won't have to push unemployment over 14 percent to be considered as great a president as FDR.

I also briefly summarize the causes of the worsening economic conditions of 1937 and 1938.

I have also written a more detailed (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirota-new-deal-and-wage-controls.html) reply to David Sirota.

Republicans Stay the Losing Course

January 8, 2009

Kathleen Parker (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11398830) writes that "the six Republicans competing for lead dog of the GOP leadership... are pro-life," meaning they want to ban abortions.

In other words, Republicans have learned nothing from the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) 2008 elections.

Ritter to Promote Transparent Budget

January 8, 2009

Face the State (http://facethestate.com/articles/13189-ritter-run-gop-transparency-agenda) reports:

With the 2009 legislative session jumping into full swing, Gov. Bill Ritter is scheduled to deliver his State of the State speech today where it is expected he will introduce his plan for a more transparent government by proposing to make the state budget available online. The plan is just the latest is a string of instances where the Democrat has utilized Republican ideas to suggest changes to state law.

Government transparency has been a priority for Republican lawmakers in recent sessions. Face the State has obtained a copy of draft legislation (PDF) that Sen. Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, and Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland, were planning to introduce this session to make the itemized state budget available online, but which Ritter may enforce by executive order instead.

This is a great, great idea that deserves broad support.

Politically, this is a great move for Ritter. As Face the State observes, this is a Republican idea. But the Democrats have won here by accommodating some of the better Republican ideas and repudiating the worst ones (regarding social policy). In some cases, it took the Democrats to pass reforms that Republicans long opposed, such as permitting Sunday liquor sales, a free-market issue.

Not only the state government but every governmental entity in the state should make its complete budget and spending documents available online. Taxpayers deserve access to this information. If Democrats deliver, they just might prove to Colorado voters that they deserve to remain in charge.

FDR's Patronage and Court Packing

January 8, 2009

Burton Folsom's review of FDR's systems of "patronage"—federally supporting favored candidates with tax-funded programs—and his scheme to pack the Supreme Court are breathtaking. Blagojevich looks tame by comparison. Here are just a couple examples:

When two officials with the RFC [Reconstruction Finance Corporation] and National Emergency Council (NEC) openly supported [Walter] George for Senate [against Roosevelt's pick] they were fired and replaced with men loyal to the president. (page 203)

The Philadelphia Inquirer observed, "The Administrations attempt to dictate the selection of popular representatives, even to the extent of using PWA [Public Works Administration] grants as lures, looks to be a monumental political blunder." (page 204)

As the second quote suggests, FDR overreached on the campaign trail, and his "tampering with the other two branches of government triggered a large opposition" (page 211).

Meanwhile, Folsom notes, FDR sat on an attempt to crack down on lynchings. On this point, however, Folsom makes an odd remark about liberalism:

Black Americans implored Congress to make lynching a federal crime, and thereby create the federal machinery to enforce justice in areas that refused to punish lynch mobs. That would expand government which appealed to liberals, and would improve civil liberties for a persecuted American minority, which also appealed to liberals.

Folsom thinks it odd that FDR failed to support the law against lynching despite its liberal appeal. And it is tragic that FDR failed to use his political capital on such a worthy cause.

However, this idea that "liberals" want to "expand government," presumably meaning that conservatives want to restrict it, puts the debate on false grounds. Beyond the problem with defining liberalism—I consider myself a liberal in the true sense—this focus on the mere size of government is misplaced. I do want limited government—a government limited to protecting individual rights. But that says nothing about the size of government needed to accomplish that goal. If a nation faces a powerful aggressor, the nation's government will have to become quite large to successfully face the threat. Similarly, when large criminal mobs go around murdering people, the government may have to take large-scale actions. The essential is the goal of government. The resources and extent of activity necessary to attain that goal are a different matter.

Martin On America's Founding: Adams

January 9, 2009

Here I continue my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/martin-on-americas-founding-jefferson.html) review of William Martin's comments on America's founding. In his (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/early-presidents-regarded-the-new-nation-as-a-secular-state) article on the early presidents, Martin summarizes:

The Founding Fathers were cosmopolitan intellectuals devoted to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, but they were not, for the most part, humanistic atheists or opposed to religion. On the contrary, they regarded morality as indispensable to a healthy state and religion as a primary foundation of morality, as well as of charity and concern for one's fellows. But the state itself should be secular.

Martin quotes John Adams, who lauded government "founded on the natural authority of the people alone... without a pretense of miracle or mystery;" such a government favors "the rights of mankind."

Martin also quotes the 1797 treaty with Tripoli as signed by President Adams:

As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]... it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.

"Not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Clearly the nation's founders were influenced both by the Enlightenment and by Christianity. The simplistic argument that the nation was founded on Christianity because many of the founders were Christian neglects to sort out the causes. What was unique to America's founding was the Enlightenment, not Christianity, which had dominated Western politics for centuries.

Richman Versus 'Stimulus'

January 9, 2009

Sheldon Richman has a nice (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0901d.asp) article out today summarizing the folly of "stimulus" spending:

Since the government has no money lying around waiting to be spent, it will have to borrow close to a trillion dollars to carry out the program President-elect Obama and the congressional leadership are planning. But borrowing money for their pet projects injects nothing into the economy. It merely moves money from where it currently is in the economy to where politicians want it to be. How is that a stimulus?

Moreover, the debt will be covered (monetized) by the Federal Reserve by creating money out of thin air.

Obama is trying to frighten the American public into supporting a massive expansion of federal power—an expansion that Obama would have favored regardless of economic conditions. But a more-socialized economy will not lead to prosperity: it will undermine it. Now is the time for Americans who care about their liberties and their economic well-being to stand up and demand economic liberty.

Martin On America's Founding: Separation of Church and State

January 10, 2009

(http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/martin-on-americas-founding-adams.html) Last time I reviewed William Martin's comments on John Adams's views on religion and government. Here I link to three related articles that Martin wrote for Opposing Views.

First Martin (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/the-wall-of-separation) reviews Jefferson's famous letter to the the Danbury Baptist Association in which he praises the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Martin also further (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/the-father-of-the-constitution-agreed) discusses the evolving views of James Madison, who also endorsed "the total separation of the church from the state."

Later, Martin (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/repeated-attempts-to-reverse-the-framers-intention-have-failed) reviews:

During... the Civil War, a group of prominent churchmen calling themselves the National Reform Association began pushing for a Constitutional amendment that would amount to rewriting the preamble "acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, The Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the Nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government..."

Neither Lincoln nor Congress took no action on the proposal, and subsequent efforts likewise went nowhere.

Meniskus

January 10, 2009

Last night I saw (http://www.meniskusband.com/) Meniskus at (http://nissis.com/) Nissis. Thanks to a friend who has dragged me to several shows, I've finally become a fan. While I was underwhelmed at an early show, I think because the band wasn't taking the venue seriously, last night the group was completely on its game, and its members did full justice to their compositional prowess.

Meniskus consists of a violinist who also sings am amazingly wide range, an acoustic guitarist who also picks up an electric bass, and a fabulous drummer who backs up vocals and plays a keyboard on the side. They're very good musicians, and they've written several great songs. I hope that brings them success.

Meniskus has a couple albums out, and I think Foreign Beyond is the one to pick up. (ITunes has it.) They have a video out on (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwFDu7aA4ao) YouTube for "Letters."

This is a Colorado band that deserves a listen.

ARC on Abortion Rights

January 11, 2009

The Ayn Rand Center ARC has published some great comments on abortion rights (http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-abortion-be-legal) at Opposing Views.

In the (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/abortion-rights-are-pro-life-and-must-be-defended-in-fundamental-terms) first comment, ARC points out that the fundamental issue is not a "woman's right to choose," but rather "a woman's right to her life."

(http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/the-status-of-the-embryo-in-the-first-trimester-is-the-basic-issue) Next, ARC explains the fundamental importance of the first trimester, when an embryo is "a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells." ARC further explains that an embryo is a potential, but not an actual, person.

In the (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/there-are-legitimate-reasons-why-a-woman-might-have-an-abortion) third post, ARC explains, "There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion—accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health."

ARC's (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/anti-abortionists-claim-to-being-pro-life-is-a-classic-big-lie) final post directly challenges the "pro-life" pretense of the anti-abortion movement:

Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."

The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

Meanwhile, the central "argument" of the anti-abortion side is an equivocation between human life in the sense of living tissue with human DNA and a human person. There is a reason why practically all advocates of abortion bans attempt to bridge that gap with religious faith.

Three on Rand

January 11, 2009

Yaron Brook (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22273&news_iv_ctrl=2703) writes in an Ayn Rand Institute media release:

Obama-nomics couldn't be more wrong. Prosperity requires that the government drastically cut government spending. That way, as much real capital as possible will remain in private hands, and be put to productive use by entrepreneurs to create valuable goods and services to sell at home and abroad. By taxing and inflating our wealth away, Obama will simply be creating more of the crushing debt that brought about the current crisis. You don't put out a fire with more gasoline. And you don't end a recession by destroying capital.

Keith Lockitch (also of the Institute) (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/09/environmental-angst/) writes for the Washington Times:

Why is it that no matter what sacrifices you make to try to reduce your "environmental footprint," it never seems to be enough? Well, consider why it is that you have an "environmental footprint" in the first place. Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature.

And Stephen Moore (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html) writes about Atlas Shrugged for the Wall Street Journal:

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises—that in most cases they themselves created—by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism. ...

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you.

Moore makes a couple of missteps—what he describes is not "simply" the "moral of the story," which is much richer, and the Atlas Society that Moore mentions (http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/toc.html) doesn't do justice to Rand's work—but his article is worth a read, as are the other two pieces.

Ayn Rand's work is increasingly relevant in today's world.

Are Secularists Responsible for Islamic Terror?

January 12, 2009

I nominate the following (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/12/hagerman-lapsed-christianity-inflames-muslims/) quote for the Stupidest Argument of the Year award:

[The] extreme form of Western secularism is exactly what is alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them toward militant radicalism. Islamists such as Osama bin Laden actually make their case against the United States and the West on the grounds that our cultures have abandoned Christianity!

From bin Laden's perspective and that of his allies, the conflict is between Muslim-led forces of monotheism and morality against Western forces of atheism and immorality. Though he refers to the U.S. as a Crusader state, his arguments clearly show that he believes the West is intent on imposing atheistic and pagan values on Muslims, not Christianity.

Kurshid Ahmad, the influential Pakistani leader of Jamaat-i-Islami, says, "Had Western culture been based on Christianity, on morality, and on faith, the language and modus operandi of the contact and conflict would have been different. But that is not the case." The assertion that the international campaign of political leaders against Muslim terror is a battle between two opposing forms of religious fundamentalism is patently false.

This argument is similar to one that Dinesh D'Souza makes. The writer, Steve Hagerman, is correct that the fundamental clash is not between Islam and Christianity. It is between theocracy and liberty. Sure, if the United States lived under a Christian theocracy, it might not be targeted by Islamic terrorists, because the United States would become just another third-world slum.

But what, exactly, is Hagerman's point? That we should act as crazy as the Islamists so that they no longer attack us?

Comment by Ryan: Doesn't the historical exampe of the Crusades kind of go against the whole "Christianity and Islam would be best buddies" argument?

Ritter's New Mandate

January 12, 2009

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11430945) reports:

... Ritter threw his support behind a proposal requiring homebuilders to offer buyers the option of putting solar panels on their home or having the home pre-wired for the panels.

"Homebuyers already have choices when it comes to countertops, paint colors and flooring," he said. "People should have similar options when it comes to sustainability."

Come on, Bill, buyers already have that "option." What Ritter wants is not the option but the requirement. The result of this will be to marginally increase the cost of homes.

Buyers and sellers—of homes and other goods—have the right to negotiate mutually-agreeable terms. Buyers who want solar panels are free to demand them, and sellers are free to provide them.

The problem for Ritter is that most people don't want to put up the extra expense of buying solar panels. Which is why Ritter wants to force people to explore that "option."

Jon Caldara had a great reply for the Post, even though safety codes too should be a matter of private contract and tort enforcement: "That's insane. Why don't we also require them to offer Corian countertops as well? This is between a private builder and a private owner, and the government's only responsibility is to make sure the building is up to safety codes."

George Mason on Freedom of Religion

January 13, 2009

Recently I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/martin-on-americas-founding-separation.html) reviewed William Martin's comments about the alleged Christian foundation of America. Here I quote the words of George Mason, a "Father of the Bill of Rights."

In his Virginia Declaration of Rights, Mason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights) writes:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

This again illustrates that America was a "Christian nation" only in the weak sense that most of its founders were Christians, not in the sense that the government was Christian in nature. Here Mason and the people of Virginia declare their support for religious liberty, which requires a separation between church and government.

True, Mason attributes certain virtues to Christianity, but he does not claim that Christianity is the only road to virtue, and indeed he suggests that people other than Christians can reach similar ends. The implication of Mason's view here is that there is some moral foundation beneath Christianity, open to reason apart from religion. This is but a short step to my view, which is that the proper moral foundation is open to reason and rests entirely apart from religion.

Obama's Fear Mongering

January 13, 2009

Barack Obama wants to frighten us into giving the federal government dramatically more power over the economy. However, not even his own advisers agree with his economic predictions. Obama (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/08/obama.conference.transcript/) said, "If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits."

Of course it's easy to claim that something "could" happen. But Obama wrongly suggests a causal relationship. It is also true that "if something is done, this recession could linger for years" with double-digit unemployment. And everything about Obama's economic plans promises to undermine the economy, from trade restrictions to welfare expansion to new controls on energy and medicine.

But here let us look only at the job picture. Interestingly, Obama's advisers released a (http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf) paper the day after Obama's speech in which they claim unemployment will reach 9 percent "Without Recovery Plan" and only 8 percent with it. Well, they can claim whatever they want. The fact is that increased central planning threatens the economy. At least they admit:

It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.

In other words, it's hard to predict the future. A lot of things "could" happen. The economy could recover relatively well despite Obama's grand schemes. But Obama's advisors fail to look at one source of error: the flaws generated by their own pragmatist/Keynesian pretensions.

Comment by Ms_Figg: Obama doesn't need to fearmonger. What's happening is right in front of us. People are losing jobs, homes, companies are going out of business, banks aren't extending credit. I don't need Obama to scare me. I'm already scared and at least want to see an attempt to turn this around. However wrong he may be about the future, he's right about right now—something has to be done.

Sirota's Statistics Fail to Vindicate New Deal

January 14, 2009

Here I continue my critique of David Sirota's case for the New Deal. Sirota wrote a (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11346152) piece for the January 2 Denver Post. I wrote a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirota-new-deal-and-wage-controls.html) reply on January 4 as well as a short (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/01/06/economic-grief-started-with-hoover-not-fdr/) letter for the Post, published January 7. (I've also written several other (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/wage-controls-past-and-present.html) articles on the matter.) Sirota completely ignores my critique of his case in his January 6 (http://politicswest.com/34012/forgotten_math_about_new_deal) follow-up for the Post's Politics West. I continue my case here in the hopes that eventually Sirota will attempt to engage the debate and respond to his critics.

1. Sirota's Smear of Shlaes

The worst aspect of Sirota's follow-up his his unjust smearing of Amity Shlaes, the respected economic historian who wrote The Forgotten Man. Reading Sirota's claims, I doubt that he has read the book. Whether or not he did, he misrepresents its contents.

Sirota claims that Shlaes's books has been "discredited," that she "wholly omits some relevant data and deviously manipulates other numbers," and that she is dishonest.

To back up this claim, Sirota quotes a Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2169744/pagenum/all) article by historian Eric Rauchway, which states, "She has unemployment at 20 percent in the 1937-38 recession. ... A third of the people Shlaes counts as unemployed had a job that the New Deal gave them through its relief programs."

Notably, Rauchway does not claim to "discredit" Shlaes's book, though he argues she is pushing an ideology (as is he), and his case is considerably more nuanced than is Sirota's. For example, Rauchway points out a couple of FDR's virtues: he supported freer world trade and he helped repeal Prohibition. Indeed, I recently (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/prohibition-free-for-75-years.html) praised FDR for opposing Prohibition. What Rauchway does not do is demonstrate that the New Deal as a package improved the economy. For example, he praises FDR's union laws without examining the economic case that those laws contributed considerably to unemployment at the time.

To Sirota, Shlaes is dishonest because she uses an unemployment figure of 20 percent during the 1937-38 recession. But Sirota uses practically the same figures to make his case. Sirota writes:

So to end this historical revisionism once and for all—to compare apples to apples, rather than apples to conservatives' fuzzy math—let's go to the great equalizer, the Census Data, and specifically Census document HS-29 (available in PDF or Excel formats). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression...

The unemployment rate that this Census data provides for 1938? Nineteen percent. So, if Shlaes uses this figure, she's dishonest, but if Sirota uses the same figure, he's invoking the "great equalizer" of data. Oops.

Notice that Sirota admits that there was a renewed recession in 1937-38. In his first article, he claimed—without any evidence or economic argument—that pulling back on the New Deal caused this. As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/wage-controls-past-and-present.html) review, FDR's new wage controls in a period of monetary contraction primarily caused this increased unemployment.

If Sirota would check Shlaes's book, he would find that she neither omits nor manipulates the data. (I quote from the 2008 paperback.) On pages 402-403, Shlaes writes a detailed note about her unemployment figures. She writes:

During the 1920s and the Depression, Washington did not keep the sort of systematic unemployment data that it collects today. ... Still, there were some national numbers to talk about. The Labor Department collected figures, as did the Census Bureau [Sirota's "great equalizer"], the Commerce Department, [etc.] ...

For the 1930s, I have gone with month-by-month figures calculated by Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, in Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth Century America (San Francisco: Independent Institute; New York: Holmes & Meier, 1993 [p. 77]). These authors use [scholar Stanley] Lebergott and government numbers as their basis. Economists on the right such as Michael Darby, Harry Scherman Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, argued later that Lebergott and the BLS both overestimated the number of unemployed by counting as unemployed people who actually had full- or part-time work in make-work programs such as the WPA. But I have gone with the traditional numbers.

So Sirota can argue that Shlaes does not use the best numbers, but he cannot fairly claim that she omitted or manipulated the data.

Neither Sirota nor Rauchway offer month-by-month, or even year-by-year, unemployment figures that they think are properly adjusted to account for federal make-work. Amazingly, Colorado Media Matters (CMM) provides a (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200901140001) good citation for this. According to the Darby figures, unemployment dropped steadily from 22.9 percent in 1932 to 9.1 percent in 1937, then bumped back up to 12.5 percent in 1938.

Shlaes does stray from the "traditional numbers" in her "Afterword to the Paperback Edition." On page 393 she writes:

In the very best years of Roosevelt's first two terms, unemployment still stood above 9 percent. Nine percent is better than horrendous, but it hardly is a figure that induces hope.

Indeed, as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/obamas-fear-mongering.html) noted, Obama's own economic advisors believe the current recession will peak at 9 percent unemployment without their intervention (even though I think their intervention will only make matters worse). Today we all think that employment approaching 9 percent is a disaster, yet the defenders of the New Deal praise FDR because, using the Darby figures, FDR almost managed to get unemployment down to 9 percent before it spiked back up to double-digits.

Perhaps Shlaes should have explained the Darby figures in more detail and earlier in her book. However, the statistical matter is not nearly as clear-cut as CMM would have us believe. While CMM accuses its opponents of cherry picking the data, CMM itself cherry-picks its sources. The Vedder and Gallaway book came out in 1993, the same year as the paper by Robert Margo cited by CMM. However, Vedder and Gallaway certainly were aware of Darby's work, and they ran his figures through their regressions (see pages 42-43). They write:

Questions have been raised about the basic accuracy of the government unemployment-rate data... Both the [Robert] Coen and the Darby estimates place unemployment at lower levels in the early thirties than the official Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate derived by Stanley Lebergott. We are inclinded to agree with Gene Smiley that the Lebergott/BLS estimates are probably as good as any. (pages 42, 79-80, footnotes omitted)

What is interesting about this is that the reference to Smiley is a 1983 article in the Journal of Economic History—the same article that CMM cites (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200901140001) here and (http://mediamatters.org/items/200812030014) here to advocate use of the lower statistics.

Smiley influenced Vedder and Gallaway, who in turn influenced Shlaes. Smiley, Vedder, and Gallaway are intimately familiar with Darby's figures. Yet Sirota and Colorado Media Matters want us to believe that Shlaes's use of statistics is sinister rather than merely a case of making a reasonable use of limited data.

Even granting the lower figures, Sirota's entire case boils down to the claim that FDR's New Deal worked wonders when it couldn't manage to get unemployment below double digits for most of FDR's first eight years in office. That's a pretty lousy case.

2. Sirota Confuses Correlation with Causation

Sirota's argument is that "the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop [in unemployment] in American history." He goes on at length about this point.

But, as I argued in my first reply, it's pretty hard to do worse than unemployment approaching 25 percent. Hoover, with the help of the Federal Reserve, decimated the economy. The fact is that the economy continued to struggle under FDR and never really recovered till the '40s. The question, then, is whether unemployment dropped under FDR because of or in spite of FDR's policies.

Sirota apparently never learned the fundamental lesson of statistics that correlation does not prove causation. He sees that unemployment dropped under FDR (relative to its horrific rate under Hoover), and he concludes that FDR's policies therefore helped reduce unemployment. That Sirota's argument may be seductively simplistic does not change the fact that it is completely wrong.

To get the idea of the sort of logical fallacy Sirota is committing, consider the following examples:

* A patient feels ill, so his doctor bleeds him with leeches. Slowly the patient recovers. Therefore, the blood-letting caused the recovery. QED.

* A woman reporting physical ailments visits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer) Franz Mesmer, who applies magnets to her and stares deeply into her eyes, after which the woman reports improved health. Therefore, to follow Sirota's method, we must conclude that the magnets caused the improved health.

* Jill comes down with a nasty cold. She smokes one pack of cigarettes per day. Over a period of two weeks, Jill mostly recovers from her cold. Therefore, by Sirota's logic, Jill's smoking reduced the severity of her cold.

If Sirota wishes to make his case, he cannot merely claim that unemployment dropped between Hoover and FDR, a fact that everyone acknowledges. (Sirota wrongly claims that Shlaes fails to acknowledge this.) He must demonstrate, using evidence and argument, that the economy improved somewhat because of FDR's policies, rather than in spite of them. He must tackle head-on the arguments and evidence amassed by the critics of the New Deal showing that FDR's policies made matters worse than they otherwise would have been, not better.

3. National Product

Sirota looks mainly at unemployment, but he also mentions economic growth. Growth is tightly tied to employment: with nearly a quarter of the nation out of work, less stuff gets made. So it is not surprising that, with unemployment less than that (but still dramatically higher than normal), production went up relative to the late Hoover years.

Sirota would not be surprised that critics of the New Deal discuss this relative increase in production if he would check their works. Here's what Shlaes has to say on the matter (page 395):

What about the oft-cited rising industrial production figure? The boom in industrial production of the 1930s did signal growth... [but a]t many points during the New Deal, net private investment was not merely low but negative. Companies were using more capital goods than they were buying.

Again the reality is considerably more complex than Sirota acknowledges.

At this point, Sirota has written two articles that utterly fail to make his case that the New Deal helped the economy. Perhaps he'll seriously grapple with the relevant issues in a future article.

4. Sirota's Stereotyping

This is a minor point tacked on at the end. Sirota claims that, after his first column, he received "angry email from conservatives," and he claims to be answering "right-wingers." However, as I pointed out in my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirota-new-deal-and-wage-controls.html) first reply, "many critics of the New Deal are not conservatives and many conservatives praise FDR."

In Sirota's simplistic world of angry conservatives and enlightened liberals, where does he fit treatments of Hoover, the Republican president preceding FDR? As I've noted, every critic of the New Deal I'm aware of also excoriates Hoover. But Sirota lacks either the ability or the will to see beyond his ideological blinders. He leads with stereotypes and ad hominem attacks and weakly follows with arguments.

Sirota received at least one e-mail that was neither angry nor from a conservative: my own. (If Sirota wishes to call me a conservative, perhaps he will explain what he's talking about, given that I'm an atheist who supports gay rights, the right to abortion, the re-legalization of drugs, and the total repeal of all censorship.)

On January, 4, I wrote to Sirota:

Dear Mr. Sirota,

I've written a criticism of your recent op-ed on the New Deal here:
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirota-new-deal-and-wage-controls.html) [link]

I would be more than happy to publish your reply, which you are welcome to send me via e-mail.

Thanks,
Ari Armstrong

Angry conservative, indeed.

Comment by C. August: Thanks for addressing Sirota's article in such a detailed way. I thought you might be interested to know that his original piece was also run on (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/02/sirota_fdr_depression/index.html) Salon.com, which is where I first saw it.

Comment by Anonymous: I think you are the one trying to manipulate the data. You can't fool the economists. See http://jessemerle.net/2009/01/24/did-fdrs-new-deal-worsen-the-great-depression/

Comment by Ari: The childish charts referenced by Anonymous prove nothing. I've already (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/did-new-deal-cutbacks-harm-economy.html) replied to the bogus claims about New Deal cutbacks. See (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html) Cole and Ohanian for more details about unemployment under FDR.

Colorado Media Matters Cites Economist Who Critiques New Deal

January 14, 2009

Colorado Media Matters (CMM) relies heavily on an economist to make the case that the New Deal helped the economy. Unfortunately for CMM's case, that economist—Gene Smiley—is a well-known critic of the New Deal with a book out called Rethinking the Great Depression.

The main issue is that are two main sets of unemployment data for the Depression era. Colorado Media Matters plausibly argues that the lower figures, adjusted for federal make-work employment, should be used. (I discuss the issue at greater length in my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirotas-statistics-fail-to-vindicate.html) previous post.) Beyond that, CMM fails to make its case and indeed undermines it.

Colorado Media Matters (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200901140001) writes:

[F]ormer Wall Street Journal writer Amity Shlaes—whose 2007 book The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (HarperCollins) conservative media figures have cited frequently to dismiss the New Deal's effectiveness—acknowledged that her unemployment figures excluded "make-work jobs," instead relying on data compiled for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by economist Stanley Lebergott. In a November 29, 2008, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Shlaes wrote, "To be sure, Michael Darby of UCLA has argued that make-work jobs should be counted. Even so, his chart shows that from 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never gets below 9 percent" [emphasis in original]. After World War II, BLS ceased counting those in work-relief programs as unemployed, as economist Gene Smiley noted in a 1983 Journal of Economic History article.

A 1993 Journal of Economic Perspectives paper by Robert A. Margo, drawing from Smiley's article, presents a table comparing Lebergott's and Darby's unemployment figures...

Media Matters for America previously has documented other conservative media figures and outlets similarly cherry-picking unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal failed to reduce unemployment. Additionally, Colorado Media Matters has pointed out that Independence Institute President and KOA host Jon Caldara parroted other conservatives by claiming that the New Deal was a failure that "plunged us into misery."

So, by CMM's account, Smiley played a central role in bringing to light the adjusted figures. Yet as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirotas-statistics-fail-to-vindicate.html) pointed out, the higher figures that Shlaes cites come from Out Of Work by Richard Veddar and Lowell Gallaway, who point out that Smiley endorses the use of the higher figures as well.

As for CMM's case for the New Deal, it is flawed for reasons I discuss in my previous post. CMM argues that, because unemployment fell between Hoover and FDR, therefore FDR's New Deal was responsible for the improvement. Colorado Media Matters thus commits an obvious logical fallacy. Critics of the New Deal argue that, even though unemployment fell relative to its high under Hoover, nevertheless the New Deal hampered economic recovery. Therefore, CMM's criticisms of its opponents are groundless.

Media Matters for America quotes Smiley's 1983 article (http://mediamatters.org/items/200812030014) as well.

So Smiley is a trusted economist, then, in the lights of CMM and its national counterpart. Perhaps Colorado Media Matters should therefore pay attention to Smiley's critique of the New Deal.

I contacted Smiley to verify that he wrote the 1983 paper. Here's what he had to say:

Dear Ari,

Yes, I wrote that article. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "my take" on the different unemployment rate estimates but I can make a couple of comments. Darby's contention is that if one is trying to understand the speed of the recovery one has to look at the truly unemployed; i.e., those who simply did not have jobs. In the search model he used that is crucial to the speed of the recovery. Thus, he excludes all those employed at federal projects designed to put people to work. Lebergott's estimates (which were much earlier and the first real estimates of unemployment for the 1930s) are generally used to demonstrate the slowness of the recovery under the assumption that if the recovery had been faster private employment would have picked up more quickly and fewer would have been employed at government make-work jobs. Essentially Darby's contention is that if one wants to examine how quickly the private economy was recovering one has to exclude all those employed at government make-work jobs because they were no longer part of the private economy. Darby makes the point that post-WW II unemployment estimates do exclude people employed at comparable government make-work projects. ...

You should probably understand that I am a critic of the New Deal. I have argued extensively that the programs which are commonly accepted to be the New Deal were responsible for the slow recovery of economic activity after the end of the Great Depression in March 1933. I have examined this in my book, Rethinking the Great Depression. For the most part Amity Shlaes and I agree. I read her entire manuscript, The Forgotten Man, before it went to the publisher.

All the best,
Gene Smiley

I do appreciate the fact that Colorado Media Matters accuses its opponents of cherry picking the data. We do need our state jesters.

Comment by Bill Menezes: The premise for your post about Colorado Media Matters is false. Our item you discussed clearly cited Mr. Smiley only as a source who pointed out the difference between labor statistics that included all jobs, and those that did not. Contrary to your false thesis, nowhere did the item either state or imply the nature of Mr. Smiley's position on the New Deal itself. It's a pity that you need to lie in order to take exception to our work; then again, that tells your reader all they need to know. Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters

Comment by Ari: Come on, Bill; your shrill personal attacks ring hollow by now. If you care to re-read my post, you will find that I point out precisely what you yourself claim: that "nowhere did the [Media Matters] item either state or imply the nature of Mr. Smiley's position on the New Deal itself." In other words, your organization selectively cites Smiley's work to help make your broader point, which Smiley's broader work actually contradicts. The fact that you unjustly call me a liar without any grounds tells my readers and yours all they need to know about you and your organization. -Ari Armstrong

Comment by Anonymous: (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/01/online-bill-pay-colorado-media-matters.html) As exposed by "slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com" Mr. Menezes (in 2007) made $112-K to do his "editorial" work at CMM. That's a salary that is out of touch with the rest of the labor marketplace in media. So not only does he have to defend himself on blogs such as this, he's got to do so in order to defend a salary that has no basis in marketplace competition. While Ari blogs out of principle, Menezes blogs to keep the gravy train rolling.

Comment by Ari: I try to discourage anonymous comments. However, I posted the one above because of its interesting link. While Slapstick seems to think that Colorado Media Matters has effectively promoted the left, my view is that the organization basically wastes its resources damaging its own credibility. Republicans can blame the big money of the left all they want, but the fundamental Republican failure is ideological, not financial. I must also correct the anonymous claim that Menezes's salary "has no basis in marketplace competition." Somebody willingly agreed to pay him the money, so that represents a market transaction. I'm not sure what precisely the relationship is between Colorado Media Matters and Media Matters for America. Finally, while I do blog "out of principle," there is no inherent conflict between writing out of principle and writing for money. I have raised some funds for FreeColorado.com as a for-profit entity (though only a tiny fraction of what Menezes pulls in, unfortunately). I do know that there are conservative/libertarians in the state who make money comparable to what Menezes makes. So it's probably a good idea to remember the goose/gander rule.

Georgia Again Contemplates Abortion Ban

January 15, 2009

Those who thought the religious right suffered defeat in 2008 oughtn't grow too comfy. Diana Hsieh pointed me to a new abortion-ban bill in Georgia. Georgia Legislative Watch (http://www.georgialegislativewatch.com/2009/01/10/glws-2009-legislative-preview/) comments:

Abortion: Two pieces of legislation dealing with abortion have been pre-filed. HB 1, introduced by Rep. Bobby Franklin (R), would make abortion a crime by defining life at conception.

HR 5, filed by Rep. Martin Scott (R), is the Human Life Amendment.

As with past sessions, neither proposal stands any chance of passing. They are only mentioned here because abortion is still a hot topic.

Here is part of the text of (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb1.htm) House Bill 1:

The State of Georgia has the duty to protect all innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death. We know that life begins at conception. After nearly four decades of legal human prenatal murder, it is now abundantly clear that the practice has negatively impacted the people of this state in many ways, including economic, health, physical, psychological, emotional, and medical well-being. These, too, are areas of legitimate concern and duty of this state. The General Assembly therefore makes the following findings of fact: (1) A fetus is a person for all purposes under the laws of this state from the moment of conception...

On the basis of the claim that "life begins at conception," Representative Franklin would declare abortion murder. However, not only is his basic argument false—life obviously precedes conception—even if it were true it would not establish the case, as Diana and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) point out. The stated foundation of the abortion ban is so weak that it obviously masks Franklin's real motivation: to impose his religious faith by force of law.

Russ Randall on the Economy

January 15, 2009

Last night I heard an interesting presentation by Russ Randall on the economy. I haven't investigated his claims sufficiently to judge whether they're remotely on track, but he tells a fascinating and initially-plausible story.

Randall started a web page with the peculiar name, (http://austrianenginomics.com/) Austrian Enginomics, which he describes as "Austrian Economic Theory blended with engineering logic." I'm not quite sure what that means. In Randall's favor, he was (http://www.austrianenginomics.com/id1.html#2) predicting economic trouble back in 2005:

Many economists believe the current (May 2005) cycle of interest rate tightening will be the cause of the economy eventually "breaking" and sinking into a recession or worse. Enginomics (and Austrian economic theory) recognizes the root cause of any upcoming economic downturn was the financial bubble creation in the first place; NOT the series of interest rate increases. The current series of post-root-cause central bank interest rate increases are belated attempts to correct a problem they created in the first place by the extended artificial suppression of interest rates and administration of easy monetary policy operations. (emphasis omitted)

Randall tries to estimate the real value of economic production based on inflation, population, and productivity measures. He places actual "total equity valuation" in 2007 at around 8 trillion dollars, whereas the nominal value showed closer to 18 billion. By this account, stocks have not reached their downward correction, and real estate is about half way there. The bond market has not yet started to fall but is soon to follow.

Randall further argues that the serious problems started around 1994, when easy money policy started to generate "the most extraordinary equity bubble in the history of the republic." This bubble began to correct from about 1999 till about 2002, when the feds again started cranking out easy credit.

So the bad news, by Randall's account, is that the economy is going to get seriously worse before it recovers. The good news is that our economy does produce vast real value, so, while production will dip below normal for a period as firms and individuals make the necessary transitions, the economy will recover. If, that is, the federal government does not totally destroy the economy through attempts at massive central planning.

There is an obvious potential problem with Randall's account, though: his base-line estimate of productivity may be way off. This goes back to debates about the Great Depression. I am persuaded that most of the stock gains through the '20s represented real economic improvements; the era showed profound advances in technology and manufacturing. While federal policy did create a bubble, the deep problem was caused by Hoover's tariffs and wage and price controls. I have no idea whether productivity today tracks Randall's estimates. But I would want to look carefully at the tremendous advances in computer technology, the internet, cell communication, and medical technology before concluding that his estimates are accurate. Obviously, if real productivity is higher than what Randall estimates, then the bubble is smaller, as are the necessary economic adjustments.

Generally, I am not going to get in the game of trying to predict the economy. It's a very hard thing to do, which is why very smart people routinely lose tons of investment money. A friend of mine once related a story that illustrates the problems. He was part of an investment club that spent considerable time tracking stocks and creating just the right portfolio. After many years of this, the portfolio showed practically the same gains as the S&P 500. We've all heard that chimpanzees throwing darts at a board could over time do about as well in creating a diversified portfolio as the highest-paid experts in the field.

That is not to say that the market is fundamentally irrational or totally unpredictable. Rather, because people tend to capture obvious gains immediately, and because of the inherent uncertainty of the future, "get rich quick" investment typically doesn't work. A major source of uncertainty is the large-scale, capricious economic intervention of politicians.

Yet, at a broader scale, economic trends are predictable. In an economy with fair and stable rules that protect property and voluntary association, the economy will tend to continually grow more productive and prosperous. In a completely capricious society, whether run by local thugs or national dictators, the economy will tend to stagnate and shrink. We are in a middle stage, and general economic trends are difficult to predict precisely because it's hard to measure and anticipate the conflicting movements of productivity gains and political losses.

Obviously, people looking to invest or protect existing investments do their best to anticipate short-term economic trends. But, for the general long-term health of the economy, what are important are the principles. We're in the mess we're in precisely because politicians and their appointees have strayed from sound economic principles and turned to range-of-the-moment tinkering. On this point, Randall and I agree.

Hitchens, D'Souza Bring Road Show to Town

January 16, 2009

The Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought is organizing a Boulder debate on religion between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens, Catholic News Agency (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14670) reports.

If I were a Christian, I would promote this debate, too. As (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/12/objective-standard-versus-new-atheists.html) noted, Hitchens holds that moral knowledge is innate, an indefensible position. So, while Hitchens makes many fine arguments around the periphery, he cannot answer the central question: what is morality without God?

Ben Degrow has a little (http://bendegrow.com/2009/now-thats-a-debate-dinesh-dsouza-christopher-hitchens-couldnt-win/) fun with a Daily Camera headline, "Conservative D'Souza, atheist Hitchens to debate God at CU." Degrow posits that a "debate against the Almighty" wouldn't "be a fair fight by any remote stretch of human imagination."

On the contrary. I'm betting that, no matter how the debate organizers prayed or promoted their event, God would be a no-show.

Windmills and Mechanical Energy Storage

January 16, 2009

I know very little about electricity-generating windmills, so my comments here may seem naive to those who do. However, I know that some very smart scientists sometimes read my web page, and I thought perhaps my comments might prompt their more-knowledgeable replies. I started thinking about this during the recent Colorado wind storms, when I noted to my wife that it's too bad we can't harness some of that violent air flow.

As far as I can tell, there are two big problems with windmills. First, they work only at certain wind speeds. If the wind is too slow, they don't work. If the wind is too fast, they either break or don't work. Second, they directly turn a generator which in turn charges batteries. (At least this is how the windmill worked that I've seen close-up.) Batteries are expensive, limited in capacity, limited in life span, and inefficient in that they leak energy. (If they're not hooked up to batteries, you've got to somehow get that energy to someplace it can be used, which creates a new set of thorny problems.)

It occurred to me this morning that it might be possible for a clever engineer to solve some of these problems with an old-school approach: mechanical energy storage. Basically what I have in mind is a big spring-loading system, or maybe a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage) flywheel.

It seems to me that if somebody could get a windmill to do two things at once, it might work pretty well. The first thing is to capture energy at all different wind speeds. Maybe the traditional propeller mill can accomplish this, or maybe what's needed is something more cylindrically shaped attached at two points. The big key is a geared system so that the mill can always spin (above a certain minimal wind speed) within a reasonable range. The second thing is to store the energy locally in some sort of mechanical-storage device. (Hell, it could just slowly lift a giant boulder in the air or something.) This mechanical storage system in turn runs the generator as needed. Also, you could hook up other moving things to charge this device.

I think part of what made me think of this are the giant mechanical clocks in Neal Stephenson's Anathem. That book also makes me sensitive to two points: most ideas are wrong (including most of the ones in that book), and the good ones are hardly ever original. I suspect one or the other is the case here, but nevertheless I thought I'd give it a go to see what more "praxic"-minded people have to say about it.

Comment by jed: I've read a bit on this—not a lot, but I got somewhat interested reading about Savoinius turbines. Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (just web search for VAWT) have tradeoffs, but some designs are more forgiving of variances in conditions. From what I've read, the Gorlov types tend to perform over a wider range of wind speeds. But a Savonius is very easy to build yourself. Lots of things suggest themselves for mechanical storage of energy potential. I suspect the practicality of them makes them less useful than chemical storage. But, suppose you could pump water uphill into a reservoir, to be metered through a hydro generator based on demand. Yeah, you'd need to live near a large enough water source, to which you had some usage rights, in order to do that.

Comment by Anonymous: Giant concrete blocks. Lift them and drop them slowly.

Comment by Anonymous: I was just thinking about this as a potential solution to the problem of storing the intermittent energy provided by solar and wind power. Specifically raising a very heavy weight as a means of storing energy and then lowering it very slowly as a means to turn a generator. I'm no engineer so I'd have to defer to others as to it's viability. There isn't much out there as to whether or not it has been considered.

Comment by Neel: Fly wheel energy is for a short period for few minutes. I dont think it can be used as alternative to battery storage. But it can defnaitly boost up the generator instantly.

Comment by Ari: As I have since (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/around-colorado-april-7-2009.html) noted, small-scale mechanical energy storage devices don't seem to be practical. However, my same scientist-friend noted, batteries can store much more energy in a small area with relatively little loss. If battery technology continues to improve, they could store not only back-yard electricity but, perhaps, run our cars. I think it would really take advances in both solar cells and battery storage to make local energy production worthwhile. For large-scale production, nuclear looks like the obvious choice.

Comment by Michael: I've also been imagining the spring-storage idea, which led me to find this blog, and realize that others out there are thinking along the same lines. It seems to me that storing energy from a rotating turbine by winding-up or compressing springs would be relatively easy to achieve, and could fit a lot of energy into a reasonably small space. Also, when you think of the millions of scrap cars, trucks, etc., piling up every year, all with springs attached, the base spring-steel material is available to use directly, or to be recycled into springs designed specifically for this task.

Comment by Anonymous: I too thought of just about all these things (gears lifting wieght,pumping water, springs) but i also learned on discovery channels distroyed in seconds that windmills have breaks so they can keep from spinning out of control and distroying themselfs, as in the case of the one in they episode with the faulty breaks. Then i was wondering the least we can do is make those breaks regenerative breaking like the hybrid cars.. not sure if they are designed with regenerative breaking in todays models or not.

Comment by Ari: In a subsequent post we established that relying on gravity wouldn't work. However, it might be possible to compress heavy-duty springs. I don't know why a windmill couldn't simply be geared to accommodate different wind speeds. Converting wind energy to outdoor heating hardly strikes me as sensible.

Comment by Alison: Please see: Mechanical Electric, Inc. (www.mechanicalelectric.com) We're working on it ...

Comment by Anonymous: Storing energy in weights is not practical. Let's say you had an elevator shaft in a 400 ft. tall building. You could lift 50,000 lbs. to the top with a motor/generator. If you needed the energy and reversed the weight it would generate only 9.6 KWH, enough to keep the hallway lights on for 2 minutes. Pumping water and using that potential energy requires incredible space. There is one on the Great Lakes that uses 1,000 acres for storage. There isn't enough potential energy in "weight" to make its use practical. It's Grandfather-Clock thinking.

Sears Promotes Faith-Based Politics

January 17, 2009

Alan Sears (http://townhall.com/columnists/AlanSears/2009/01/16/call_of_duty_why_the_fight_for_religious_liberty_is_the_fight_for_life) argues "the fight for religious liberty is the fight for life," i.e., the fight to ban abortion. In other words, Sears, a former federal prosecutor, believes that the "liberty" of some permits them to impose their religious faith by force of law on others.

Sears quotes Madison, who said that one's duty to God "is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society." Sears neglects to mention that Madison also (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/martin-on-americas-founding-separation.html) endorsed the separation of church and state and (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/martin-on-americas-founding-jefferson.html) opposed "suffering any Sect to invade [the equal rights] of another."

Sears's entire case rests on the claim that a fertilized egg is a person, and as such properly has all the same rights as a born infant. In general, the proper purpose of government is to protect people's rights, which obviously is compatible with religious liberty. The problem with Sears's case is that a fertilized egg is not a person, and he makes no attempt to prove that it is.

Indeed, nobody from the anti-abortion side has seriously addressed the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) arguments that Diana Hsieh and I reviewed last year. That is because the case for outlawing abortion—imposing criminal penalties for it—rests on religious faith. It is not religious liberty, but religious tyranny, that seeks to violate the rights of actual people based on the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person.

Pfiffner Explains Colorado's Budget Cut

January 17, 2009

The Colorado media are filled with claims that the state budget faces around a $600 million shortfall. Penn Pfiffner explains the details in an Independence Institute (http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast248.mp3) podcast.

Pfiffner explains: "Really the bottom line that we need to talk about when we talk about that $600 million, is that about two-thirds of that is a lower amount in the increase. Now there will be some real cuts in the general fund operating budget from last year to this year because of the recession."

Jon Caldara, who interviews Pfiffner, summarizes, "Out of this $600 million that we're hearing... about $400 million of it is just scheduled increases in the budget."

Pfiffner continues: "Let's talk about the real amount of dollars that won't show up in the general fund: it's $234 million. So when people say we're cutting the budget, they're accurate in saying $234 million. How much of that is the total budget we're talking about? It's three percent—3.1 percent." Pfiffner argues that the state "can endure that."

Pfiffner and Caldara then discuss Amendment 23, which forces increases in education spending even at the expense of other programs. Pfiffner points out that this will put "an additional $408 million going into that state education fund."

Pfiffner points out that a "reduction in revenues... is happening across the nation; after all, the nation's in a recession, not just Colorado, and every state is dealing with it."

"Because we have TABOR [the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights], because we have restrictions, because we have a mandated balanced budget requirement, Colorado is nowhere near in as bad as trouble as, say, New York or California," Pfiffner added.

Pfiffner argues that the current pain was exacerbated by Democratic profligacy. He says:

At the beginning of this last budget cycle, conservatives within the house and the senate said, Governor Ritter, don't spend so much. Don't let your budget grow so quickly. We don't know if we're going to be able to afford all of this. And furthermore, don't increase the size of the staffing that you've done at the state level. And Governor Ritter was kind of willing to overlook any possibility like that. The staff grew by a large amount, as you see the budget grew by a large amount, and now they're having to retract back...

The general fund is but a portion of the total budget. Pfiffner explains, "The overall budget, this is the total budget, is set at $18 billion, $366 million—$18.4 billion... You certainly can adjust $234 million within that."

Pfiffner also explained that the predicted increase in spending from Referendum C has been scaled back from the highest estimates to "more like $4 billion for those five years," still considerably higher than the estimates provided when it was passed.

Under Referendum C, the state keeps money that under TABOR it otherwise would have to refund. "The additional amount of new taxes coming in... this year is $363 million. Let's compare that: $363 million of new Referendum C dollars is more than the $234 million they're saying they have to cut." In other words, over the last few years spending is up considerably, only now there will be a modest overall decline in the general fund.

Pfiffner summarizes, "The large numbers thrown around by the state leaders is really not a true cut in the budget. The true cut in the budget is about a third of what they're saying... The legislators have a job to do, but it's not an undoable job, it's well within the means of what they can change."

Comment by Allen: Is this for a single year budget or is the $234m spread out over two years?

Comment by Ari: I believe the figure is an estimate for the current fiscal year.

Did God Save Flight 1549?

January 18, 2009

Karin Hill is a hero who helped other passengers evacuate the plane that recently landed in the Hudson River. Nicely done. We all can be grateful that nobody was killed, and that crew and passengers alike acted bravely.

However, I must point out the problems with a comment by Karin's understandably relieved and proud mother. She (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11472022) said, "Our whole family really attributes this to the grace of God. He protected her and the plane and everyone. We all feel that way." Not to take anything away from Karin's bravery, but let's think that one through.

If God was protecting the plane, then why did it crash land in the first place? Have you ever noticed that people tend to invoke God's grace only after something terrifying has happened? Where was God before the crash? Why didn't he, for instance, gently push the birds aside so that they didn't damage the aircraft? I have a hard time believing that God would be so vain as to allow the crash just so that he could take credit for preventing any deaths.

More to the point, what about all the people whom God does not save? The idea that God saved the passengers of this flight implies that God chose not to save the passengers on other flights who perished. The implication is that either these other passengers were not worth saving, or God acts capriciously, saving some and permitting others to die a fiery and horrifying death.

The passengers in New York got unlucky in that their plane went down. Then they survived through a combination of good luck and brave action. Out of respect for those who were not so fortunate, let's leave God out of it.

Comment by Ryan: I heard it said elsewhere and not by an objectivist that a miracle would have been something that contradicted reality like the bird going through the engine with either being harmed. I saw a decent amount of respect for the heroes that did the real work although the word "miracle" was thrown around liberally.

Comment by Merkaba: As one US Airways flight 1549 survivor put it, "God was certainly looking out for all of us." So I guess what this fortunate fellow means is, God, the old man with the beard who lives up in the clouds, decided that all the people on US Airways flight 1549 were so special, that he decided to frighten the crap out of all of them by faking a fatal plane crash, systematically making them think that they were going to die, then at the very last minute, God said, "HA-HA! Just kidding! I'm not going to kill you! I just wanted to scare the shit out of you, and then save your asses, since you're all so special, and I really want you to know that I care for you and love you, so I'm going to save you now, so that you believe in me. The passengers on Flight 800, and other catastrophic fatal crashes were generally not good people, and so I disposed of them... After all, I'm God, damn it, and I exterminate bad people. The Sudanese victims of genocide are generally bad people, which is why I don't let them live. 9-11 rescue workers, trapped and crushed on 9-11... Obviously bad people... Jewish victims of the Holocaust? Well certainly I had to kill them since they didn't believe in the divinity of my son Jesus. I mean, no brainer there."

Comment by Anonymous: quote "If God was protecting the plane, then why did it crash land in the first place?" The answer is in your question. Because it benefits all. God makes His sun to rise on the good and the evil and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. To you this may make no sense at all, as most would never send (or give) any type of benefit to anyone except to those who can benefit themselves in someway.God is not like this.God is not like you or me,as He is God,not a meer man. If you will read the accounts of other Flight 1549 survivors,you will see that most have a "new lease" on life.It is no longer about themselves but about others,about living life to its fullest,in the few seconds before impact,there was no one saying ,how many turns does the world make a million years,is the bail out plan going to work,I wish I could just divorce my spouse... or even the dreaded "I dont believe in God so it doesn't matter as I am smarter than most". I seriously doubt anybody was thinking that,They were all thinking about if they were going to die.The rest of life was unimportant,God became vastly important,as it states all(most anyway) were praying to GOD.

Comment by Chancellor Haines Maxwell: The God thing. Puzzling isn't it? If there is a God then it seems as though you have decided he would surely reason and think the way you think. I haven't read any of your other posts yet (but I will....I enjoy hearing a variety of viewpoints) but can I assume you only post the comments that line up with your perspective?

Comment by Ari: Typically I only post the comments that make some sort of interesting point. Maxwell's comments about God not thinking the way people think is just a variant of the claim that we can't possibly understand God, which, inexplicably, is taken as some sort of proof that God must therefore exist.

Quillen on New Deal Make-Work

January 18, 2009

Unlike FDR's wage and price controls, destruction of agricultural crops, and massive cartelization schemes, the New Deal's make-work spending actually left something to show for the effort. Ed Quillen, neglecting to review the most obviously destructive aspects of the New Deal, (http://www.denverpost.com/quillen/ci_11411106) points to the "infrastructure" projects that continue to enhance our lives. He pushes his point: "The post- World War II population growth along the Front Range couldn't have happened without those Depression-era water projects."

Letter writer Cora Scherma (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/01/12/government-did-help/) praises Quillen's analysis and New Deal make-work: "[P]erhaps the neocons and libertarians among us should consider the following: Don't attend concerts or religious services at Red Rocks; don't enjoy IMAX films at Phipps Auditorium; avoid sections of the Denver Zoo lest you be tainted by big government..."

But Quillen and Scherma commit a basic economic fallacy. Henry Hazlitt explains in Economics In One Lesson:

There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending. Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for all our economic ills. Is private industry partially stagnant? We can fix it all by government spending. Is there unemployment? That is obviously due to "insufficient purchasing power." The remedy is just as obvious. All that is necessary is for the government to spend enough to make up the "deficiency."

An enormous literature is based on this fallacy... [A]ll government expenditures must eventually be paid out of the proceeds of taxation; that inflation itself is merely a form, and a particularly vicious form, of taxation. ...

I am here concerned with public works considered as a means of "providing employment" or of adding wealth to the community that it would not otherwise have had. ...

For every dollar that is spent on the bridge [or other public work] a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. ... Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed elsewhere. ... [Consider also] the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the ungrown and unsold foodstuffs. (1979 edition, pages 31-34)

Of course an artificial boom or bubble—such as the modern one caused by federal easy credit policies—necessarily triggers a consequent recession, which tends to generate temporary unemployment. If the government has imposed wage controls, including wage floors and union favoritism, this will dramatically exacerbate unemployment, as it did during the Great Depression clear through the late '30s. The solution is to remove the political impediments to economic activity and allow a recovery. Federal make-work may soak up some of the unemployment, but only at the costs that Hazlitt reviews. These funds are desperately needed in the market economy; they will instead be diverted to politicized projects.

Quillen errs also in imagining that government is the only entity capable of conducting certain projects. But there is no reason to expect that a market cannot provide water as it provides so many other goods and services.

Scherma adds a double error to the above. First she suggests that the only ones to oppose federal make-work are "neocons and libertarians"; I am neither. Second she implies that, when politicians force people to fund projects, those most opposed to that use of force should also refrain from benefiting from that which they were forced to fund. But that would only add a second injustice to the first, first stripping people of their wealth, then of even any marginal benefits of it.

The seen, as Hazlitt puts the matter, consists of the projects funded by politicians with other people's money. These projects are visible, and their use is obvious. They offer something tangible for which the politicians can take credit. The unseen are all the investments and expenditures prevented by the forced wealth transfers. Politicians can take little credit for allowing individuals to produce without their "help." So the next time you read about New Deal spending, or federal spending under Obama, consider not only the jobs and projects created, consider also the jobs and projects prevented.

'Call to Service': Means and Motives

January 19, 2009

Colorado Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/18/bible-lesson-and-call-service/) preached yesterday at the First Baptist Church in Denver, "All of us have a call to service."

He told the Rocky Mountain News, "I think here I have a lot more freedom to make appeals based on moral grounds. Across the street, I have to couch them in different terms and still try to say the same things."

This raises three issues: the connection between religion and altruism, the meaning of service, and the difference between voluntary service and involuntary servitude.

The first point needs little elaboration. Christians call for service to God and service to mankind. Collectivists of the 20th Century dropped the first part but kept the second. Modern collectivists increasingly return to their religious roots. But, to make full sense out of this, the second point is essential.

The idea of "service" packages together fundamentally disparate kinds of things. If a father drives his daughter's Girl Scout troop into the forest and helps to lead a camping expedition, he is performing a service to the group, because he loves his daughter and wants to see her do well. If someone raises funds for a cancer research organization, the person is answering the "call to service" by helping to fund something the donor regards as important. The college student who delivers pizza provides a service to his clients and gets paid for it. A student who drops out of school to move to Africa to care for the poor, thereby sacrificing her favored career for a religious calling, is performing service, too.

Many would split service into the two categories, "for monetary gain" and "not for monetary gain." However, that's not really the fundamental division. A father who works so that he can buy his daughter food acts from basically the same motivation as the father who volunteers to take his daughter's group camping. The motivation is rational self-interest, taking into account the full scope of the father's interests, which extend far beyond material gain. Rational self-interest routinely involves providing services to others, either for money or on a volunteer basis. The other basic sort of service is self-sacrificial, done against one's rational self-interest.

Carroll's case blurs this distinction. An adult who volunteers to tutor children in the community often acts from rational self-interest; the assistance offers the satisfaction of seeing a child do well and contribute positively to the community. But a child who gives up his studies to work constantly at the soup kitchen would be sacrificing his interests and his future.

Craig Biddle (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/capitalism-moral-high-ground.asp) explains the difference in the context of business:

[B]ecause pushers of altruism frequently equivocate on the meaning of the concept of "service," it is crucial for advocates of capitalism to grasp the actual meaning of this concept as it relates to altruism.

Altruism does not call merely for "serving" others; it calls for self-sacrificially serving others. Otherwise, Michael Dell would have to be considered more altruistic than Mother Teresa. Why? Because Michael Dell serves millions more people than Mother Teresa ever did. The difference, of course, is in the way he serves people. Whereas Mother Teresa "served" people by exchanging her time and effort for nothing, Michael Dell serves people by trading with them—by exchanging value for value to mutual advantage—an exchange in which both sides gain.

Trading value for value is not the same thing as giving up values for nothing. There is a black-and-white difference between pursuing values and giving them up, between achieving values and relinquishing them, between exchanging a lesser value for a greater one and vice versa.

Biddle's article addresses capitalism, so he's focused on market exchanges, but the same basic point about pursuing one's greater value applies across the board.

The third point about service is that it matters very much whether it's voluntary (whether self-interested or self-sacrificing) or forced. When Carroll preaches at church, he cannot force anybody to do anything. He must rely on persuasion. At the state capitol, he is involved in passing laws that are ultimately backed up by men with guns. Service at the point of a gun is not really "service" at all—it is servitude.

Hollywood Welfare

January 19, 2009

With more and more Colorado families struggling to pay the bills, the Colorado legislature is looking to put Hollywood movie producers on the dole.

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/15/proposal-seeks-to-lure-film-crews/) reports, "With an eye on luring movie productions to the state, the Colorado Film Commission hopes its latest proposal will fly because its $10 million cost would be offset by payroll and sales taxes paid by film companies that come to Colorado."

The relevant House Bill is 1010, which would create "within the Colorado Office of Economic Development the Colorado Office of Film, Television, and Media." The new bureaucracy would, among other things, "market Colorado as a destination for making feature films..."

The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not help produce films. By forcibly transferring wealth to the project, the legislature would violate the rights of those who do not wish to fund it. Among other problems, many Coloradans would be forced to subsidize films that they regard as philosophically corrupt.

If legislators really want to help develop the economy, they will put an end to corporate welfare, protectionism, high taxes, and economic controls. They will eliminate the Office of Economic Development and cut tax rates across the board.

Sean Page (http://www.locallibertyonline.org/paige_blog.php?blogid=1380) points out that Hollywood Welfare isn't all it's cracked up to be; one study for New Mexico "found that the state gets about 14.4 cents in tax revenue for every dollar it spends on these efforts."

The Rocky reports, "Colorado's film industry has argued that productions no longer choose locations based on scenery or a movie's plot, but look first at states that offer financial incentives."

That's just pathetic. We don't need to stoop to our knees to grovel beside other states over who can best bilk the taxpayers in order to subsidize movie producers.

It's also a good argument against the alleged economic gains. States that play this game will find they are trying to out-compete each other in luring these Hollywood bandits to town.

Rick Warren's Fine Line

January 20, 2009

I disliked quite a lot about Rick Warren's prayer at Barack Obama's inauguration. But he did have one excellent line, that we are united not by race and not by religion, but by our commitment to freedom. To the degree that the religious right—and the religious left—takes that insight seriously, we can all get along fine in the political arena.

This is an historic day, and I am proud to bear witness to it. Long live liberty, long live justice, for all.

Comment by Bill Snedden: The problem is, of course, that not only do they NOT take that insight seriously, in reality they just don't share that commitment. In fact, their religious beliefs pit them in direct opposition to it.

Obamanomics Threatens Economic Recovery

January 20, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090120/COLUMNISTS/901199974/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Obamanomics%20threaten%20economic%20recovery) published January 20 in Grand Junction's Free Press.

Obamanomics threatens economic recovery

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Barack Obama wants to "stimulate" the economy with barrels of other people's money. Crack cocaine and crystal meth provide a "stimulus" too, and Obama's proposal is about as healthy. Obama would have us believe that the answer to bad debt is more bad debt. Like a drug addict, Obama is looking for a short-term fix that endangers long-term health.

In his January 8 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08text-obama.html) speech on the economy, Obama warned, "If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years." But if Obama proceeds with his plan, he could make the recession worse and undermine long-term economic prosperity.

A recession occurs when an economic shock compels people to readjust their plans. In this case, the shock was largely caused by federal policies that encouraged and even mandated risky home loans. A recession is the period of changing strategies and rethinking behavior that sets the stage for renewed economic prosperity. A sick economy, like a sick person, needs recovery, not artificial stimulation.

The basis for long-term economic prosperity is the enforcement of just and stable laws. The government plays a legitimate role in preserving a free market by protecting property rights and freedom of contract, stopping violence, rooting out fraud, and providing the legal framework for resolving disputes.

Such stability is precisely what Obama threatens to undermine. It is ironic that Obama delivered his address at George Mason University. Russ Roberts, an economist at George Mason, recently (http://www.invisibleheart.com/2008/10/dont_just_do_something_stand_t.php) wrote, "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... The frenetic efforts of FDR had the same impact: Net investment was negative through much of the 1930s."

In his Virginia Declaration of Rights, Mason himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights) wrote "That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue..." Obama's plan is the opposite of temperance and frugality.

Obama said he wants to spend tax and deficit dollars to "invest in priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure." Isn't it interesting that this is the same corporate and personal welfare Obama also supported before the recession?

Obama wants more federal control over the economy, and he is using the recession as a pretext to achieve it. Does anyone doubt that these "investments" will be politicized? Obama has long supported government-funded health care. He has long demonized traditional energy producers and called for politically-correct—and frighteningly expensive—"green" energy.

The result of Obama's "investments" will be to put medicine, energy, and other industries more under the capricious control of federal politicians and bureaucrats, thereby contributing to the insecurity that Roberts warns about.

Obama would also siphon resources away from free-market investment. The government can "invest" only by taking wealth out of the free economy through taxation, deficit spending, or inflation. Politicians now talk of adding a trillion dollars to the deficit. This too threatens long-term prosperity.

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22273&news_iv_ctrl=2703) argues that the federal government should reduce spending—not increase it—so that "as much real capital as possible will remain in private hands, and be put to productive use by entrepreneurs to create valuable goods and services to sell at home and abroad."

In his speech, Obama invoked the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal. Is Obama the next FDR? Those who read our December 8 (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/politicians-caused-and-worsened-great.html) column may hope not. Through his first two terms in office, unemployment never dipped below 9 percent (or 14 percent depending on the estimate), and it climbed again by 1938, due largely to FDR's stiffer wage controls.

Amity Shlaes reviews the transition from Coolidge to Hoover to Roosevelt in her book The Forgotten Man. As Vice President under Harding, "Cool Cal" witnessed a recession in the early 1920s, but thanks to a hands-off policy, by 1923 "it was hard to find an unemployed man."

But in the early 20th Century central planning became the rage in parts of Europe and, to a lesser degree, in the United States. Shlaes reviews that two economists popularized the term "beneficent hand" to substitute the hand of politicians for the Invisible Hand of Adam Smith's market. In their book The Road to Plenty, they promoted spending as primary.

But one astute observer of the time wrote about this book, "Too good to be true—You can't get something for nothing." This observer was FDR himself, just a few years before his own "beneficent hand" stimulated the economy into the ground.

FDR forgot the lesson that Obama seems never to have learned. A stimulated orgy of federal spending is no substitute for a sound economy.

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.

Good Cross-Cultural Movies

January 20, 2009

By coincidence, my wife and I have seen several movies lately that deal with themes of ethnic relations. Culture clashes can give rise to funny as well as poignant moments. Last November, we saw (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/outsourced.html) Outsourced, in which an American goes to India to train his replacement.

Gran Torino remains in theaters. Clint Eastwood plays a widowed war veteran with rough and bigoted language. His neighborhood has been largely bought out by Asian immigrants, and an Asian gang roams the streets. Yet Eastwood's character finds that he has more in common with his new neighbors than he thought, and he resolves to help them fight off the local gangsters. Unfortunately, some idiot reviewer spoiled the ending for me. But I still really enjoyed the movie, even though it takes the bigoted language too far and features some occasionally clunky acting.

Under the Same Moon tells the story of a boy living in Mexico who travels to the U.S. illegally to join his mother, also in the country illegally to find work. I enjoyed the story for two main reasons. The boy shows amazing determination and cleverness in making his journey. And a friendship that the boy develops on the road proves inspiring in its bonds.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/visitor.html) The Visitor also deals explicitly with the immigration issue. Richard Jenkins brilliantly portrays a man who has lost the meaning of his life. He finds it again when by chance he meets a young foreign couple. He is inspired by the couple's love and by the young man's devotion to African drumming. The fact that the film takes an overtly political turn in the end didn't diminish my enjoyment of it, though it will turn off some.

August Evening is a slow, ponderous film about an elderly man and the young widowed woman once married to his son. I really enjoyed the acting in this movie, especially by Veronica Loren, the young woman. Both the main characters struggle to move into the next stage of their lives. The father-in-law struggles to find work and maintain bonds with his family, and the woman tries to push out new love. The pair moves around Texas, staying for a time with the man's two surviving children. Not much happens in this movie, but it's a nice portrayal of a loyal friendship. And there is one very funny scene that I won't describe here.

In The Band's Visit, the band is from Egypt, and its members accidentally visit a tiny town in Israel. Very strong acting, especially by Saleh Bakri, who plays a young womanizer and musician, and Sasson Gabai, the band's leader who often clashes with the younger player. As with August Evening, there's not much going on plot-wise, but these characters are mesmerizing to watch, and again parts of the movie are very funny.

Finally, I will mention The Kingdom, in which FBI agents travel to Saudi Arabia to figure out who attacked an American installation. The best part of the movie, besides its heroic and tense finale, is the friendship between the lead American and the local officer assigned to protect and monitor the group. I must offer special praise to Ashraf Barhom, whose touching portrayal of the Saudi officer makes the film. Barhom, like Bakri, is from Israel. I hope to see much more of both of them.

We live in a global economy, in which international travel is easier than ever before. One reason I like these movies is that they help us discover the richness of our world, as well as the themes universal to humanity.

Censorship for Allah

January 21, 2009

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481110,00.html) "A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Koran a 'fascist book,' a Dutch court ruled Wednesday."

Because the best way to demonstrate that the Koran is not a "fascist book" is to promote fascism in the name of the Koran.

Unfortunately, and hypocritically, the lawmaker in question "called for a ban on the Koran 'the same way we ban "Mein Kampf"'." Someone who wants to censor the Koran (or Hitler's screed) can hardly complain when somebody wants to censor him.

If the West loses free speech, it loses itself. There is no more important political issue than maintaining free speech, no matter who finds it offensive.

Comment by Cedar Bristol: I'm not sure that the non-Anglosphere parts of "the west" have ever had free speech. I've seen plenty of evidence that continental Europeans don't know what it is and none that they ever knew it in the past. When I started going to the French conversation group at the local University at age 17, I met a German guy and asked him if he didn't think it was counterproductive to ban the political parties in Germany (like the neo-nazis). "Isn't that just enacting Naziism?" I asked. The question didn't make sense to him. I had the impression that "freedom of speech" to him meant something like "a state in which a wide variety of expressions are permitted". Later in 98, in an advanced French conversation class, The instructor started talking about the Jerry Springer show the other day and the things that the klansmen on it had said. I remember what he said word for word. Translated: "In France it's illegal to say anything racist. If they had said that on a French TV show, the transmission would have been cut and they all would have been arrested." I apologize if I've posted these stories in your comments before, I know I've brought them up somewhere similar, but they are essential background to some questions: Do you have any evidence of the slightest clue on the issue of Freedom of speech in any non-Anglosphere western nation? I kinda doubt it.

Comment by Ari: As much as I appreciate your anecdotes, your snarky finale is uncalled for. I am well aware that, in general, Europe protects free speech less well than the United States does (and that the United States also imposes censorship in various ways). But do you seriously doubt that free speech is better protected throughout Europe better than, say, in the Middle East?

Comment by Cedar Bristol: I consider Europe generally free and the Mid-east not so. But the freedom of speech that they have in Europe is by default due to the list of things one is forbidden from saying being shorter and the punishments less severe than in muslim countries. EU governments refrain from violating their citizens' free-speech rights to a much greater extent than muslim countries, but they do not protect these rights. I don't know of a European country where a law like the German and Dutch bans on Mein Kampf has been struck down on the basis of protecting free speech and would be interested to hear of any examples. This is my idea of an example of the government protecting a right. I know this kind of thing has happened and continues to happen in the U.S. and I don't know that it ever has in Europe. The only thing like an attempt to legislate free speech rights that I know of is the French declaration of the Rights of Man, and that document had no legal force during the brief time before it was scrapped by Napoleon and replaced with explicit censorship laws.

Comment by Cedar Bristol: I come off sounding a bit more knowledgeable of Europe than I really am. That was bad editing. I managed to find a good example of Europeans framing the issue in what I consider the right terms via Amy Alkon The title is the money shot: (http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/25/geert-wilders-speech-oped-cx_dvh_0126vanhoogstraten.html) Freedom of speech means the right to say hateful things Some more good quotes indicating a better picture than the one I had in mind: On the Geert Wilders trial: "Most thinking people in the small country seem to agree that their freedom of speech includes the right to say things profoundly dumb and offensive." "Which begs the question: What was the judge in Amsterdam thinking?" I don't know how representative the netherlands are of the rest of the continent in this respect, and would someday like to know.

Barack Obama and the Politics of Cynicism

January 21, 2009

Barack Obama said many wonderful things in his inauguration address, and he said them very well. Ultimately, however, Obama offers the message that economic liberty must be forcibly restrained because free-market principles no longer apply.

Obama calls his opponents cynics. What is cynicism, and which side exhibits it? Obama uses the term basically to mean a nay-sayer. The modern term but loosely connects to its Greek roots; Oxford's dictionary defines a cynic by today's usage: "A person disposed to rail or find fault; now usually: One who shows a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions, and is wont to express this by sneers and sarcasm; a sneering fault finder."

Obviously merely finding fault is not cynicism; anyone who takes any position whatsoever necessarily finds fault with the other side. Instead, cynicism is faulting others' positions or motives without good reason, or faulting mankind as such though no such conclusion is warranted; it is substituting the sneer for the argument. So what does Obama have to say about cynicism?

Obama complains about "worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics"; he says "the time has come to set aside childish things." He leaves his meaning obscure, but clearly he's setting up somebody for a fall.

Obama then offers due praise to the American spirit:

[I]t has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things—some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor—who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom. ... We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished.

He then summarizes his ambitious goals:

The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality... and lower its costs.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

Obama's vision for the federal government is ambitious. He wants the federal government to aggressively fund not only transportation infrastructure, but communications, scientific investigation, health care, energy production, and education. Later he says the federal government should also help people find jobs and prepare for retirement. The scope of this federal control of the economy is breathtaking. Though he invokes the spirit of the Founders, the sort of federal government that Obama promotes bears little resemblance to the government instituted by the Founders, the purpose of which is to defend our "unalienable Rights" to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Far from endorsing a free market, Obama instead lauds the "watchful eye" of the federal government. This is not merely the eye of a "night watchman" who guards against force and fraud and helps resolve disputes peaceably. That sort of watch protects a free market. Instead, Obama proposes a "watchful eye" that observes—and controls—how people spend large fractions of their money, which corporations receive federal funding, how individuals and companies conduct business, and how individuals receive health care and other basic services. It is a Watchful Eye with a far and penetrating gaze.

Here is the segment in which Obama discusses his Watchful Eye and the alleged cynicism of those who do not care to be so watched:

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.

But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

Notably, Obama completely ignores the fundamental cause of our economic troubles: a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/politicians-caused-and-worsened-great.html) network of federal controls that promoted risky loans. In other words, the cause of the problem was the federal government's "watchful eye," yet Obama considers it the only solution.

Obama's passage echoes the (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2008/01/Why-The-Church-Is-The-Conscience-Of-The-State.aspx) writings of Jim Wallis, who preaches "progressive" religion:

One could say that people of faith should endorse a "limited" view of government. This is not the old conservative proposal for small government, sometimes cynically argued in order to reduce the public sector's ability to counter the power of the wealthy and ensure more fairness and balance in a society. But neither is it an argument for big government that usurps more and more control in a society and puts in jeopardy both individual rights and countervailing powers to the state. Clearly, the answer to the endless left-right debate is neither small government nor big government, but rather effective, smart, and good government.

Obama (following Wallis) is right about one thing: the central issue is not about small versus big government. The central issue is about whether government protects or violates individual rights. If a large number of citizens roam the countryside victimizing innocents, government must exert considerable force stopping them. If a foreign aggressor threatens to destroy us or take us over, government must grow to a size necessary to stop the threat. In all cases, it is the proper job of government to protect us from force and fraud and oversee the peaceable resolution of disputes. That is, it is the proper job of government to protect our rights, whatever size of government that requires.

Central to liberty is the right to use one's own wealth and resources as one deems best. We have the right to interact with each other on a voluntary basis, rather than by force. We have the right to exchange and cooperate to mutual advantage. We have the right to volunteer our services or donate our wealth as we see fit. We have a basic, fundamental human right to live in economic liberty. The term for such a socio-economic system, in which the rights of each person are consistently upheld, is capitalism, characterized by the free market.

Notice that Obama does not praise a "free market," but a market under the federal government's Watchful Eye. Obama does not endorse economic liberty, free markets, or individual rights in the economic sphere. He endorses the massive, forced redistribution of wealth by politicians and bureaucrats. He endorses far-reaching economic controls by the same. His vision of the federal government is not one that protects individual rights in the economic sphere, but one that aggressively violates them.

Yet Obama, like Wallis, holds that no principles are necessary in the economic sphere. True, Obama praises the "old" virtues of "honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism." But these can remain sufficiently vague so as not to challenge the propriety of the Watchful Eye.

To Obama, anyone who upholds government as the defender of economic liberty must be dogmatic, childish, cynical, detached from reality, and "stale" in their arguments. Obama's alternative is a pragmatic appeal to government that "works" to oversee the economy. But this raises several questions. If economic liberty is a dogma, then what is it that Obama advocates? Who is to determine whether the government is "working?" For whom is it "working?" How can a government "work" to violate individual rights without straying from justice and prosperity? How can a government that violates economic rights protect rights generally?

Theory and fact, ideology and history demonstrate that economic liberty promotes justice and prosperity, while political controls promote the opposite. Obama's memory seems to have shut out practically all of the 20th Century. Those who argue that federally-controlled medicine wouldn't work (to take but one example) do not embrace cynicism: they embrace reality.

So who here is the true cynic?

Advocates of economic liberty hold that each individual properly lives his own life and pursues his own ends, consonant with the rights of others. Such advocates hold that, when people are free from force and fraud, they will join together on a voluntary basis to create a just, prosperous, and peaceful society. This view is the opposite of cynicism: it is a view rooted in the belief that people tend to do a good job leading their own lives and cooperating with others, and that the best society is a free one.

Obama, on the other hand, unleashes a string of personal attacks against the defenders of economic liberty. He implies that a government that protects individual rights is inadequate for preserving the "greatness of our nation." He holds that people, if left to their own choices in a system of economic liberty, will tend to do the wrong thing. What people need is not liberty, by Obama's view, but the guidance of a Watchful Eye. He holds that people must be watched—and controlled—by federal politicians and bureaucrats.

I can imagine no more cynical view than that.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: The watchful eye is a very scary concept, along the same lines as Big Brother is Watching You. I suppose that they don't teach 1984 in high schools anymore. I know my daughter told me that her teachers said that it was not necessary since the fall of the Soviet Union. Of course, that was not the point of the story . . .

Atheism Is Not a Religion

January 22, 2009

Often we hear religious apologists claim that atheism is just another religion, and that one must have "faith" to be an atheist just as one must have faith to worship Jesus.

But atheism is not a positive belief system at all. It merely rules out belief in God and the supernatural. Atheism is no more a religion than "a-Santa-Claus-ism" is. It is possible and desirable for an atheist to build a system of beliefs rooted in the evidence and integrated by reason. Such beliefs do not compose a religion, either, nor are they expressions of religious faith.

Religious pluralism—the ability of people of many faiths or no faith to live together in harmony—rests on the idea that people can reach some common ground beyond religion, a common recognition of facts and reason available to each of our natural faculties. What happens when no such common ground exists?

A recent (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090113/LETTERS/901129967/1020&title=Atheists%27%20view%20illogical) letter in the Free Press illustrates the problems:

The barriers to truth on this issue regarding prayer by government officials are primarily psychological, not logical. Most of the confusion is born from a misunderstanding of proper "church" and state separation, along with two logical impossibilities—actual neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism. Both assertions are nonsense. ... [A]theism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency.

In other words, absent a common ground of reason, people of each religion must attempt to enforce their faith by law, to the extent of discouraging (by means unstated) other religions. The word for such a system is theocracy.

Comment by Anonymous: I don't know of anyone who thinks that atheism actually IS a religion, but atheism does have many characteristics similar to religion such as faith (since it's impossible to KNOW there is no god then the atheist must take that "belief" by faith), proselytizing, belief ABOUT the supernatural (a definition of religion is simply "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe…" [Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006] ), atheist churches (see (http://atheismsfallacies.com/blog/2008/01/25/the-church-of-atheism-npr-transcript/) http://atheismsfallacies.com/blog/2008/01/25/the-church-of-atheism-npr-transcript/), and a US court rulling atheism a religion (see (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=31895) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=31895). Someone once told me "if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck it's probably a duck". The same could be said of religion, if it looks like religion and acts like religion it's probably a religion. Atheism might not be FORMALLY recognized as a religion but it sure has characteristics of most other religions in the world.

Comment by Ari: 1. One need not disprove an arbitrary assertion. Pointing out that there is no evidence in something is not expressing "faith" that it doesn't exist. In addition, the very concept of God is logically incoherent. 2. Atheism is not a positive belief about something supernatural, but merely the belief that the supernatural does not exist. That's far different from religious faith. 3. The fact that there are "atheist churches" doesn't imply that atheism is a religion. You could start a "stamp collecting church," for instance. 4. This is not the first time that courts have abused the language. However, free speech and freedom of conscience transcend religion; atheists too properly claim those rights. 5. The motive behind classifying atheism as a religion is a peculiar one. The idea is that atheism, like all religion, is merely an arbitrary assertion. But how does that help the case for religion? Is your point that Christianity is no better and no worse than atheism? The view is deeply skeptical, in that its logical implication is that all beliefs are equally arbitrary, and nobody can really know anything.

Comment by Daniel Ong: If atheism isn't a religion, shouldn't the "religious freedom" clauses of the First Amendment read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, atheism, or agnosticism, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."? (see p. 62 of link; I withdrew my resolution that afternoon when they couldn't display it on the big screen despite its being submitted first thing that morning, and I didn't want to risk its being defeated since I didn't have enough printed copies for everybody) For a clearer understanding of separation of church and state, I suggest you read "Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State" by Smith and Ross along with "Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State" by Dreisbach. Hamburger, taking a generally opposite view favoring stricter separation in "Separation of Church and State", tends to simply ignore anything that doesn't fit his view.

Feds Caused Medical Cost Shifting

January 22, 2009

Today the Rocky Mountain News sorta kinda praises "Gov. Bill Ritter's proposal to expand medical coverage by leveraging new fees on hospitals." The paper summarizes:

[A] well-designed plan could ease some of the cost-shifting that occurs when patients who require care and can't pay their bills show up at emergency rooms and doctors' offices. And cost-shifting results in private health insurance premiums rising much faster than they should.

Under the plan, hospitals would pay fees to the state based on the number of beds occupied or the days patients are admitted. These fees would then be leveraged with a dollar-for-dollar match from the federal government.

But why is this a problem in the first place? It is a problem because the federal government forces hospitals to treat people without compensation. Imagine a federal law that required grocery stores to hand out food, for free, to anyone claiming to need it; that would result in "cost-shifting" in food. On a free market, many health-care providers would negotiate lower prices based on need, and charities would help cover those unable to pay the bills. But the federal law interrupts these voluntary solutions and forces some to pick up the tab of others, whether they can afford it or not.

This is a classic case of the federal government trying to solve a problem (with Ritter's help) that the federal government created.

Slumdog Millionaire

January 22, 2009

In my recent (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/good-cross-cultural-movies.html) list of "good cross-cultural" movies, I forgot to mention the spectacular film, Slumdog Millionaire. Oscar gave me a helpful reminder by nominating the film for 10 of its awards.

It's about three impoverished Indian children who struggle to survive and reach adulthood with their spirits and bodies intact. The "Millionaire" part comes in when one of the trio, as a young adult, lands a spot on the native version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." The young man does very well, which leads to suspicion. He tells the story of his life in flashbacks. This is not a story about becoming a millionaire, but about fighting for one's loved ones, no matter what. If features very fine acting and directing.

What's culturally interesting about the film is that it's an English film set and filmed in India, mostly in English, and its gimmick is an international game show. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F) notes about the game show, "The format is owned and licensed by the Japanese production company Sony Pictures Television International." So it is a truly global film.

My only minor gripe with the movie is that it shows some of the economic development of India without indicating why it happened. But that's background.

Wiki also notes the film had a budget of $15 million, yet it is phenomenally better than many films that cost ten times more.

Roe v. Wade Anniversary

January 23, 2009

January 22 marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that liberalized abortion law. Last year Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) reviewed the reasons why that's a good thing. But the religious right, driven by religious faith, ignores the reasons why abortion should remain legal.

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/23/at-capitol-abortion-likened-to-slavery/) reports, "Abortion is the slavery issue of our time, author Eric Metaxas told about 400 people at the annual Colorado Right to Life rally Thursday on the steps of the Capitol." Metaxis made it clear that his motive is religious faith: "God is the one who calls you to the battle."

However, the comparison between abortion and slavery completely falls apart in light of the fact that a fertilized egg is not a person, whereas a slave is. As Diana and I also (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/10/abortion-and-abolition.shtml) point out, the true comparison is between the abolitionist movement and the progress in making abortion legal. Abolishing slavery and legalizing abortion both protect the rights of people.

Yet, not only does the religious right continue to push its faith-based politics, it makes it a priority, despite the movement's sound defeat last November. For example, Andrew Tallman (http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2009/01/22/a_reminder_to_pro-life_christians) writes, "[A]bortion is the single greatest moral evil of our day. Nothing else even comes close." But where is his argument that abortion is evil at all? In fact it is the prohibition of abortion that is morally evil. But, to the religious right, violating people's right to get an abortion is more important than fighting terrorism or preserving economic liberty. And that is precisely why the religious right took such a beating at the polls.

Comment by Ed: I think the point is, Ari, that at the time a slave was a human being who was not legally recognized as a person. Likewise, an unborn child is a human being who is not legally recognized as a person. I see the parallels very clearly. Good to see/hear from you again! But I disagree with you on this. I wonder if you might be interested in doing a radio program about this (maybe combine it with talking about your new book?).

Comment by Ari: You're missing the point entirely. A fertilized egg is not, in fact, a person, and therefore should not be legally recognized as such. When you're prepared to seriously present a case for your supposition, taking into account the arguments that Diana and I have reviewed, then please get back to me.

Comment by Ed: But an embryo is a human being, every bit as much as a slave or a Jew, so your distinction is moot. And this isn't why Republicans took a beating at the polls. They got beat because their candidates weren't conservative, and many Christians (enough to make a difference) didn't vote (for them at least). Be honest, would you vote for Al Gore if he made Ron Paul or Bob Barr his running mate? No? Well, neither would we (not some of us, anyway). I'm serious about the radio show, if you'd like a good debate! Plug your book, and your ideas! -Ed

Comment by Ari: The difference is that I've made my case, and you haven't. You can keep repeating your claim without evidence or proof, but that leads nowhere. The problem with your claim about Republicans not being sufficiently "conservative" is that the term has no precise meaning, and it packages a bundle of disconnected programs. As I've argued, McCain hurt himself by supporting Bush's bailouts. But even more he hurt himself by selecting the anti-abortion zealot Sarah Palin. I've reviewed this (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) elsewhere.

Highway Mileage Tax

January 23, 2009

Politicians own most roads. I don't think they should, but now political roads are so entrenched that it would be a difficult thing to transition to a free market in roads. (Certainly I don't regard such a move as a priority.) So long as politicians own the roads, they must fund them with some sort of taxes or fees. How should they do that?

Ideally, roads should be funded as closely as possible by use. That's the idea behind the gasoline tax. If you drive more, you pay more. If you drive larger vehicles that cause more wear on the roads, you pay more. If you don't drive at all, you pay nothing. So, as far as taxes go, the gasoline tax is among the least offensive. Certainly they are better than general taxes collected for roads that bear no relation to use.

What about toll roads? For new highways, a toll makes a lot of sense. Notably, a toll road need not be owned or operated by politicians; they can and should be owned and operated by market companies. I'm not a huge fan of charging tolls for politically-owned roads that are also funded with gasoline (and other) taxes. I'm more open to the idea of charging tolls on such roads for new lanes.

This brings us to today's (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/22/proposed-tolls-mileage-fee-are-hard-sells-road-fun/) news:

Provisions for tolls on existing public roads and a fee based on miles driven must be removed from a major transportation funding bill if it is to get bipartisan support, Republican leaders say. ... [Two legislators] have gotten mixed reaction on the proposed vehicle-registration-fee increase at the heart of the plan, which would cost drivers of most cars and trucks $41 a year. ... Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry and House Minority Leader Mike May say they are willing to increase the fee if other changes are made... [including the] elimination of a study to determine if there is a funding source, such as a vehicle-miles-traveled fee, that would be better than the 75- year-old gas tax.

Obviously I'm against raising registration fees, which have nothing to do with use.

What about a per-mileage fee? I was surprised to (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/23/carroll-watching-your-mileage/) learn from Vincent Carroll that Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation is among those "intrigued with billing for miles." Carroll is sensible to the implications:

[W]ith an electronic gadget in your car that notes when and where you drive, bureaucrats will enjoy much more power. They'll be able to adjust driving fees according to the time of day or type of car. They'll be able to create zones in which the tax per mile is higher than it is in others.

Yes, they'd be able to do all of that, and perhaps eventually much more. Eventually somebody will get the bright idea of using the tax for more far-reaching social-engineering (beyond driving politically-correct cars). What about tax "incentives" for politically-correct driving, such as government-approved "volunteer" work? "Incentives" for driving in economically depressed areas? "Incentives" for driving to politically-favored jobs or health activities?

Carroll summarizes the argument against the gasoline tax:

State Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, has got the right idea when he says "we've got to figure out something besides the gas tax" to pay for roads. Hybrid vehicles and, later, a growing fleet of fully electric autos are going to destroy the link between the miles you drive and the amount of fuel tax you pay.

The argument about hybrids is unconvincing. Many hybrids get worse gas mileage than my family's two traditional vehicles. If hybrids actually manage to catch on, that would imply only that the gasoline tax might have to be increased per gallon.

I don't see "fully electric autos" rising in the market anytime in the near future. Nobody has solved the battery problem, so far as I'm aware. (They're expensive, large, heavy, and toxic.) So until somebody creates an electric car that actually works at a reasonable cost, I see little point in changing the type of tax. If that happens, surely there are alternatives to a mileage tax.

I for one have no interest in telling Big Brother where and when I'm driving.

Comment by Uncle Fester: It seems like if they really want a milage tax, then a odometer tracking system would be less invasive than a GPS tracking system. I don't want the government knowing when and where I drive. I don't even use any cell phone or GPS for that reason.

Comment by Walter: The odometer system is possible, and could even include a road sensing system. Such a system could sense what sort of road the car is on, and charge varying rates for city streets or interstate highways, or private off-road use which would not be billable. None of that would allow the government to snoop on a car's whereabouts.

Comment by Allen: The problem with the gas tax isn't that it doesn't work but that politicians haven't been willing to raise it. The administrative tools for it are already in place. Starting up this new milage fee will have many expenses beyond the tax itself. For example, we'll be maintaining 2 different sets of government groups to administrate those 2 systems for collecting user fees. There is no compelling reason beyond politicians not have the balls to raise it. And if the paradigm is government meddling with how people live, why would we not want to have a system that has an incentive to use a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle. As for heavier vehicles causing more damage, it's not that simple. Since even city streets are engineered for big heavy vehicles, semi's or at least garbage trucks, fire trucks and such for all practical purposes a Suburban doesn't cause any more road damage than a Yaris.

Comment by Anonymous: Ask the voter for a per gallon increase. Include language that mandates the new money and old money go to repairing existing roads. Toll roads are a violation of privacy just as GPS is. Government will always own roads and the fuel tax is the best compromise. Fuel sales
have increased every year in Colorado, not as much as the politicians had hoped.

Comment by car tracking: "It seems like if they really want a milage tax, then a odometer tracking system would be less invasive than a GPS tracking system." This one, I agree with Uncle Fester. If you get tracked, even say they say they wouldn't store any data, the threat to privacy still remains.

'The Whole Country Is With Him'

January 23, 2009

I found this comment amusing in light of current events:

"The whole country is with him... If he burned down the Capitol, we would cheer and say, 'well we at least got a fire started anyhow.'"

-- Will Rogers on FDR's first election, quoted in Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man, p. 150

Haggard, Again

January 24, 2009

Once upon a time, Ted Haggard was the respected senior pastor of the gigantic New Life Church in Colorado Springs. He was let go after news surfaced that he had hired a drug-dealing male prostitute to do who knows what. Now, the AP (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11540936) reports, there are new allegations that he had a lengthy sexual relationship with a male church volunteer. Oh, and HBO is coming out with a documentary about him. Can the story get any stranger?

January 26 update: Paula Woodward (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=108566&catid=339) reports for 9News, "Former New Life Church pastor Ted Haggard's return to the national spotlight is being marred by new allegations he performed a sexual act in front of a young male church volunteer on a trip in 2006. The man tells KRDO-TV in Colorado Springs the incident was not consensual."

Comment by Tenure: A man who describes sex as being metaphysically wrong, turns out to have guilty sexual secrets. What's strange about that? :D

Sea Kittens Yum

January 24, 2009

As I've mentioned before, I've taken to reading Jason Sheehan's restaurant reviews for Westword, which has nothing to do with my interest in restaurants (which is minimal). Now he's (http://blogs.westword.com/cafesociety/2009/01/peta_in_the_news_again_new_sea.php) taken on PETA:

Yes, that's right. PETA is currently campaigning to have the name "fish" changed to "sea kitten." ... Once netted, they are either suffocated or clubbed in the head or decapitated. None of this overshadows the fact that they are delicious, and that the only way to get them from the ocean to my belly is to kill them.

Sea kittens—yum.

A Timely Prophesy

January 25, 2009

This analysis from the March, 1962 Objectivist Newsletter reads like a prophesy of the 2008 election, in which John McCain selected Sarah Palin to appease religious conservatives. Or a prediction of the Bush presidency:

The implications to tying capitalism to faith have come nakedly into the open in the explicit irrationalism of many "conservative" groups. Intending to bring the mystical concept of Original Sin into political theory, they declare that man is depraved by nature, that reason is impotent, that man should not attempt to create a perfect political system or to establish a rational society on earth—but should settle for capitalism instead. ...

The greatest single threat to capitalism today is the attempt to put capitalism, mysticism and Original Sin over on the public as one "package deal." No attacks by collectivists could do more to discredit capitalism than is done by this kind of attempt.

Thanks to the faith-based politics of Bush and McCain, the collectivist Barack Obama is now president. And capitalism needs rational defenders more than ever.

Dumb As A...

January 25, 2009

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11532644) opines today, "Also on the chopping block is half the tourism promotion budget, a particularly counterintuitive move, since such studies show tourism promotion spending brings back $13 for every dollar spent."

Uh, no.

First, the Post isn't reporting the full results of the "study" in question. The study (http://www.colorado.com/ai/LongwoodsColoradoAdvertisingEvaluation2007.pdf) alleges that the "state taxes returned per ad dollar invested" amount to $5.81; the rest is local taxes. (See page 21.)

Second, and more importantly, the study itself is laughable, as my dad and I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/shut-down-corporate-welfare-for-tourism.html) pointed out earlier this month, and as Vincent Carroll has also (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/20/carroll-tourist-trap/) noted. Yet, so far as I'm aware, this is the third time the Post has mentioned these studies in an editorial without critical comment.

The entire budget for corporate welfare should be eliminated.

Let's hope the state's legislators aren't as dumb as the Post.

The Theist's Sneer

January 26, 2009

Burt Prelutsky (http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/01/26/do_either_god_or_al_gore_exist) writes:

Human beings like to believe they're totally rational creatures. To take an extreme example, atheists are convinced they can prove that God doesn't exist. This is a particularly fascinating phenomenon because among those who believed in God's existence are such brainy people as Albert Einstein, Rene Descartes, Albert Schweitzer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Johann Sebastian Bach, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Aquinas, John Milton, Michelangelo, Herman Melville and even the deeply cynical Graham Greene. While representing the opposing point of view, we have the likes of Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Bill Maher. And yet, any number of atheists who have to take off their shoes in order to count up to 11 are absolutely convinced they're right.

If theists are so convinced they're right, why do some of them resort to such smear campaigns against atheists?

Prelutsky suggests that, if you're smart you believe in God, whereas if you're unserious (or worse) you don't. He substitutes an appeal to authority for an argument, yet he neglects to mention the serious authorities for atheism. (He likewise neglects to mention the various tyrants, racists, and murderers who have invoked God's name.)

Prelutsky's attack on atheists is gratuitous given his main topic: a criticism of global-warming alarmism. Indeed, his attack undermines his main case. Can Prelutsky prove that human-caused global warming doesn't exist? Many smart people claim it does, while many unserious people claim it doesn't. Why does the onus of proof apply in one case but not the other?

Most disturbing is Prelutsky's attack of the view that people are rational. Yes, he's criticizing those who feign rationality without displaying it. But his comment, in the context of his ad hominem attacks, betrays a deeper cynicism toward human rationality as such. Arguing against the belief in God, he suggests, can be no more consequential than taking off one's shoes. But what does that say about people who claim to have rational reasons for believing in God? Maybe that's why he punts on the reasons, invoking the authority of his own side while sneering at the other.

Fines for Plastic Bags?

January 26, 2009

Last year I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/02/fees-for-bags.html) wrote about a proposal to fine the use of plastic shopping bags. Now it's back, this time with the support of the children, because when children support political economic planning it's so much cuter than when adults do it.

You can read about the story at (http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=108503) 9News, the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/26/students-back-plastic-bag-ban/) Rocky Mountain News, the (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11552803) Denver Post, or various other Colorado news sources. The upshot is that State Senator Jennifer Veiga and Representative Joe Miklosi want to impose a six-cent fine on plastic bag use, half of which would go to government-run education (because it is so obviously free from propaganda).

There are two main reasons, and several minor ones, why this is a horrible idea.

How stores supply bags to customers is properly between those parties, not politicians. Grocery stores have the right to provide the bags they want and that they believe their customers desire. Shoppers have the right to use those bags or bring their own. This is a matter of property rights and freedom of contract, and Veiga and Miklosi would violate both.

A government that can micromanage our shopping bags can control every other aspect of our life as well. If the "problem" is that plastic bags create waste, don't we need political controls on all other sorts of waste? All around us there is wasteful driving, wasteful packaging, wasteful thermostat-setting, wasteful clothing, wasteful everything—according to the environmentalist zealots. Maybe we should just let the sate seize total control of the grocery stores, shut down the wasteful ones, and ensure the stores sell only non-wasteful products, as defined by politicians and bureaucrats. Clearly that is a recipe for tyranny of the highest order.

Now for the minor reasons. Plastic bags are cheap and convenient. Many people use them for trash-bag liners or to clean up after their wasteful pets. (Maybe those should be banned, too—just think of all the poop and food baggage they generate.) Cloth bags are a nuisance for those shopping on the fly. Besides, grocery stores such as King Soopers already provide a modest financial incentive for bringing your own bags.

This proposal is social-engineering. It is wrong. It is immoral. The very fact that it has been proposed and lavished with media attention illustrates how far our nation has moved away from the principle of individual rights. It is a great scheme by the environmentalists, though: they spend our tax dollars to propagandize to children, who in return propagandize for environmentalist causes which would expand funding for government-run schools. Brilliant. [Update: Kent Denver School, which features the children pushing for the fine, (http://www.kentdenver.org/podium/default.aspx?t=101454) is a "non-profit, private independent school." This does not change the arguments, though it does indicate how widespread is the anti-capitalist, environmentalist agenda.]

Update, January 30, 2009: The Rocky points out in an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/30/attack-on-plastic-bags-illegal-costly-and/) editorial:

Merchants would keep half the fee; the rest would underwrite a state "plastic bag reduction education fund . . . for the purpose of educating consumers" about the other part of the bill: an outright ban on plastic bags taking effect July 1, 2012. ...

Because the 6-cent arbitrary charge appears to be a tax, it must be presented to voters for approval, according to TABOR.

I had been relying on this (http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=108503) comment from 9News: "The other three cents would go back to the state to fund education."

I did try to look up the bill before posting this article. I could not find it in the listings on the legislative web page, so I called the state capital and learned that, because the bill had not yet been introduced, it was not available online. I am happy to correct the record now.

The "plastic bag reduction education fund" makes the bill even worse, much worse, as it would force consumers to fund environmentalist propaganda, adding to the violation of their rights an infringement on their freedom of speech, which entails the right not to fund speech one finds objectionable.

Comment by Anonymous: Look at LA stats to see the impact of plastic bags on one community. You call cloth bags a nuisance? What kind of "nuisance" do you think climate changes will have on your way of life plus plastic is made of oil which finances weapons used against us. My cloth bag has more than paid for itself in pay backs and it's a habit not a nuisance and a habit other countries practice. Do you want cleaner air or convenience?
signed, greenga City officials estimate that Los Angeles consumers use 2.3 billion plastic bags each year. An estimated 5% of plastic bags are recycled statewide, according to the city's Bureau of Sanitation.

Comment by Ari: Obviously, the people of Los Angeles, along with the people of Colorado, benefit from the use of plastic bags, meaning that the bags positively impact the community. Exactly how do plastic bags dirty the air? I thought the issue was landfill waste, which is simply not a real problem. I fully agree that oil funding is a problem—which is precisely why the U.S. should open up its own lands to oil development (as well as to nuclear power development). It's great that you like your cloth bag. What's not great is that you want to forcibly impose your own preferences on everyone else. Your preferences and your ideological commitments do not justify the violation of people's rights.

Comment by Mark Wickens: Toronto (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1132284) just passed a bylaw that forces grocery stores to charge 5¢ for a plastic bag. It's still bad, for the reasons you give, but at least in our case the money doesn't go to the government.

Comment by NoelArmourson: I had the idea that this extra expense would be an unreasonable hardship for some homeless people, but then came the realization that if it helps pay for better education the homeless problem will be reduced. I just love my Representative Joe Mikolosi... ;)

Comment by Ari: Noel, I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic. However, I'll address your comments as though they're straight. First, the homeless constitute a tiny fraction of a grocery store's business; the broader problem is the poor. Anyway the idea that increased tax-funding for education would somehow reduce homelessness is ludicrous. Obviously the law would impose a minor, but not a severe, hardship on the poor. But I did not base my case on that argument, as it's a peripheral issue. Perhaps you would care to contribute a comment that actually responds to the relevant arguments.

Comment by NoelArmourson: Ari, sarcasm is indeed the order of the day and is totally called for in the case of this nannyistic nonsense.
Any increases in funding for public education through taxes/fees/fines for plastic bags won't have any effect on the future prevalence of homelessness, which is something I've seen close-up and personal. Plastic shopping bags have a utility which, in most situations, far outweighs the overstated negative environmental impact.
The truly deleterious effect of such a proposal as this is in the reduction of liberty with its concurrent impact on our social, psychological and spiritual environment.

Tax-Funded Abortions

January 27, 2009

Douglas Smith (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/27/smith-obama-signals-anti-life-administration/) complains that Barack Obama has moved to "repeal by executive order the prohibition on using scarce federal dollars to fund groups that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries, otherwise known as the Mexico City Policy."

I quite agree that the United States government should not be subsidizing abortions internationally, or at home. But that's because I don't think the United States government should give any money whatsoever in foreign aid, nor should it fund any health care domestically. But, so long as the federal government is going to fund welfare in and out of our boarders, there's no good reason to exclude abortions.

Smith alleges that Obama's policy is "anti-life." But if Smith cares to glance at the widespread squaller of third-world nations, he might notice that forcing people to bring an embryo to term, when they cannot support a child and the attempt would only further impoverish them, is in fact the anti-life position. That doesn't mean that the U.S. has a positive responsibility to fund welfare for the world's poor, nor to ensure just laws in other nations that permit legal abortion, but it does mean that abortion funding should not be specifically targeted. It is no better or worse than other sorts of welfare funding.

Comment by Jim: Obama's memo does not lead to the federal funding of international abortions. As the memo clearly states, such funding is illegal under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The new policy rescinds a gag against speech, which prohibited entities funded by USAID from offering information or counseling about abortion, even if such services were funded by non-USAID money. The question is to what extent can the President (originally Reagan) expand policy beyond the clear meaning of an existing statute (passed under Kennedy) to place limits upon the speech of foreigners.

A Good Beer Needs No Political Force

January 27, 2009

The following article was (http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/2009/jan/25/free-our-beer/) published by Colorado Daily on January 26, 2009, under the title, "Free our beer: Stop telling grocers what they can and can't sell." It also (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1580) appears on the Independence Institute's web page as "A Good Beer Needs No Political Force."

Game time is ten minutes from now. Tortilla chips, check. Salsa, check. Okay, where's the real beer? If you've ever wanted to buy food and fine beer at the same store, tough luck. State law says that's a crime.

Last year the Democrats pushed through the free-market reform of allowing liquor stores and their customers to conduct business on Sundays. Yet the Colorado liquor industry remains hampered by Prohibition-era controls. State law prohibits liquor stores from opening chains and selling food. It forbids grocery stores from selling anything but low-alcohol beer, and that's the big fight this year.

In a January 11 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/11/carlson-axing-32-a-blow-to-beer-lovers/) article for the Rocky Mountain News, John Carlson, executive director of the Colorado Brewers Guild, argues that the grocery-store restrictions promote "the diverse array of beer styles for which Colorado is nationally known... because independent liquor stores offer [craft brewers] vital access to market." However, truly "independent" liquor stores wouldn't demand protectionism imposed by politicians and their army of bureaucrats.

The point of the free market is not to maximize choices in beer or any other item, but to protect liberty. If having the most beers available were the goal, the state could force all liquor stores to carry every single beer brewed throughout the world. State law could also force existing brewers to expand ten-fold the styles of beer they produce. Somehow, I doubt the people paying Carlson's salary would appreciate such laws.

Free markets do offer consumers vast choices by protecting their right to exchange on mutually agreeable terms. People naturally seek a wide variety of goods and services. When politicians attempt to ensure "choice" by forcibly intervening in trade, they destroy people's choice to buy and sell as they see fit.

Choice does not justify force. For example, we have fewer choices today in horse-drawn buggies, hand-sewn clothing, and pet rocks. If politicians tried to force us to buy more of those things, they would undermine our choice to shop for other goods.

Carlson implausibly claims that grocery store sales would restrict the diversity of beer. The rise of microbrews is due to consumer demand, not protectionism. Some grocery stores would stock a wide selection, expanding the ability of craft brewers to get their product to market. Many stores would continue to compete for the business of those who just can't decide between that Smokejumper Porter and Mephistopheles' Stout.

Stores properly compete on diversity of selection, price, and customer service. Some people just want an ice-cold Coors. Others want the global sampler pack. Some shop for convenience, others for rare beers sold by knowledgeable employees. Telling grocery stores they can sell only low-alcohol beer is a bit like telling Wal-Mart it can sell only Britney Spears in the music aisle. We don't protect butcher shops by forcing grocery stores to sell only fatty hamburger.

By forcibly limiting the choices of shoppers who prefer a basic selection at lower prices, Colorado law forces some beer drinkers to subsidize those with more eccentric tastes.

Protectionism helps some businesses by harming their competitors. It violates the spirit of camaraderie, liberty, and free competition that craft brewers are supposed to represent. At game time, root for your team, and root also for the freedom to buy goods and services from anyone willing to sell them. And don't forget the salsa.

Ari Armstrong is a guest writer for the Independence Institute and the editor of FreeColorado.com.

Comment by Allen: I have a hard time seeing how in 2009 if you drink these craft beers that you'd bother buying Budweiser at the local liquor store at the last minute. That is, if you regularly buy 90 Schilling or something from Breckenridge Brewery why would you ever under any circumstances decide to drink Bud? Seems like they're putting resources into what is a non issue or at worst so small of an issue that it's outweighed by the opportunity that some convenience stores may sell their beer.

Life Is Improbable

January 28, 2009

Towhhall.com, the "conservative" forum, seems to spend about equal time promoting religion and beating up Democrats. Which says a lot about why the conservative movement today is in disarray, and why Democrats rule the nation and Colorado. But Townhall does provide grist for the blog. Today Bill Murchison (http://townhall.com/columnists/BillMurchison/2009/01/28/god_and_mr_darwin?page=2) argues:

It's hard, with it all, to see why the scientific types cling so feverishly to the creed—alien to the whole of civilization, prior to the 19th century—that God couldn't have dealt the cards originally. Well—they respond—it's because there's no evidence to show it. Possibly not. There is something else, though: a thing called common sense. Everything here and all around us just happened, without the intervention of a Designer? Isn't that just a little improbable?

I trust I need say little in response to the "everybody's doing it" argument. Nor do I need to spend much time addressing Murchison's suggestion that a strongly held belief is like an illness. What about the idea that life is improbable? Well, of all the galaxies we know that swirl around our universe, of all the solar system comprising these galaxies, so far as we know exactly one contains a planet that supports life. Yes, life is improbable. Of all the mass in the universe, life claims a miniscule, vanishingly small fraction of it. Yet something that is improbable is also possible, and in a large universe highly improbable things are bound to arise somewhere. Indeed, the very concept of probability implies that we know of something that happens in some cases but not all.

Just think of how improbable it is that you have your distinct set of DNA. Unless you have an identical twin, no other living thing on earth shares your precise DNA. You won the universal lottery.

The idea that life is improbable poses no real challenge to the claim that life arose in a causal universe. It makes sense, whether common or not.

Around Colorado: 1/28/09

January 28, 2009

I'm going to try something new today. I read the local news "papers" online every day, and generally I run across various interesting stories that I wish I had time to pursue further. But I can only comment at length on a small fraction of the stories of the day. So I'm going to try compiling many of the interesting stories in a single blog, with quick comments. I hope this provides readers with some good leads and also indicates at least in outline the free-market, individual-rights response. I hope readers will submit comments with links to stories I've missed.

Colorado Budget

Both the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/27/prison-closures-education-cuts-needed-ritter-says/) Rocky Mountain News and the (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11567809) Denver Post review Governor Bill Ritter's budget cuts. The Rocky begins, "Colorado must shut down two prisons, slice $225 million from schools and higher education and suspend property-tax breaks for senior citizens to close its funding shortfall, Gov. Bill Ritter's budget director said Tuesday." The Post adds "furloughing state workers."

But why do the politicians and the media always lead with the relatively popular programs, rather than things like corporate welfare? (Don't get me wrong; I think tax spending should be cut in those other areas as well.)

As Penn Pfiffner (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/pfiffner-explains-colorados-budget-cut.html) explains, most of the $600 million budget shortfall is actually a "cut" in proposed increases.

If the papers want to help put the budget in perspective—and I've seen no indication that they do—they'd offer their readers some historical context. I'd like to see the annual figures, in today's dollars, for state and federal spending from the very beginning, in absolute terms, per capita, and as a fraction of GDP.

But, somehow, the papers seem more interested in sensationalism than in context. The idea seems to be that sensationalism sells papers. Well, that's obviously not working.

Ritter's Attack on the Right to Bear Arms

The Post's (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11567809) article contains this ominous line: "The governor's plan also has one money-generating proposal: a $10 to $15 fee for background checks on would-be gun owners. Officials said there had been a fee in previous years, but it had been eliminated."

We have the right to bear arms. Ritter treats this right as though it were a political privilege. I guess we'll see whether the Democrats wish to remain in power.

Liberty Beer

The Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11568738) reviews the debate about beer sales in grocery stores. The Rocky also ran a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/27/supermarkets-convenience-stores-want-stronger-beer/) story. I've made (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/good-beer-needs-no-political-force.html) my case for economic liberty.

Oil Shale Rules

Why does the federal government (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11568370) get to set the rules for oil shale development? It's because the federal government owns vast tracks of land, especially throughout the West. The owner of the property must set the rules for use. I have long proposed privatizing these lands, transferring deed to current users and giving the rest away to conservation groups.

Bailout

Obama (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11570807) wants to spend another trillion or so of other people's money. Somehow, I doubt that the Republicans, who started this bailout madness, will put up much of a fight. It would be nice, though, if some elected official, somewhere, took economic liberty seriously.

David Harsanyi (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11566875) writes a nice critique of the bailout.

Here's a laugh: Ken Bonetti (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/01/27/economic-stimulus-4-letters/) claims, "President Barack Obama's economic stimulus is a welcome change from the counterproductive monetary policies and destructive laissez faire of the past 30 years." What universe have you been living in, brother? "Laissez faire" means hands-off. During the past 30 years we've suffered under the Community Reinvestment Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, capricious Federal Reserve policies, No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, HUD, the FDA, the EPA, the IRS, the SEC, the FCC... do I really need to continue here?

Smoking Ban

Michelle Shomler (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/01/27/don%E2%80%99t-roll-back-colorado%E2%80%99s-smoking-ban/) argues, "There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke, a leading cause of cancer and heart disease. People have the right to assemble or work in an environment free from this health hazard."

Yes, people do have that right. They also have the right to assemble with smokers. What people do not have the right to do is dictate to property owners how they use their property. I agree with Shomler about one thing: establishments shouldn't need to "apply for a license that would permit smoking of all tobacco products purchased on-site." You shouldn't need a license from bureaucrats to use your property with voluntary patrons as you see fit.

Capping Progress

Vincent Carroll writes a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/28/carroll-obamas-stealth-tax/) critique of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal for emissions.

Office of Economic Stagnation

Mike Williams (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/28/too-much-spent-for-too-little/) writes, "The Denver Office of Economic Development receives $25 million to help 180 households at risk of foreclosure. What? That's almost $139,000 per household! If they can only help 180 households with $25 million, they are incompetent—and we are stupid for letting them do it." I haven't checked into the numbers, but no matter what the numbers are, this is simply not a legitimate governmental function. Taxing stable homeowners to subsidize the unstable ones is wrong. It is indeed unfortunate, though, that the federal government promoted risky home loans, the central cause of the mortgage meltdown and the modern recession.

Climate Change Coordinator

(http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/live_from_the_colorado_legislature/archives/2009/01/madden_returns.html) Gov. Bill Ritter has appointed former House Majority Leader Alice Madden as Colorado's new climate change coordinator."

Well, isn't that exciting. One of my friends wrote in, "It's been damned cold lately! Tell her to turn up the global thermostat a few degrees!"

Plastic Bag Fines Hurt Environment

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/fines-for-plastic-bags.html) argued, the real reason to oppose plastic bag fines is that they violate economic liberty. As Keith Lockitch (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22271&news_iv_ctrl=1021) points out, "Every value we create to advance our well-being--every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture--is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit."

However, it is also a little bit funny that the fines actually end up harming the environment. Westword (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/01/could_proposed_colorado_law_to.php) points out that in San Francisco "the ban has forced a proportional increase in the number of paper bags used. Since paper bags take up much more space than plastic bags, it has caused greater volume into landfills." Way to go, eco nuts.

Of course, the environmentalist response to this would be to fine paper bags, too. Which is why getting to the core principles is important.

Comment by paul tiger: I was hoping that we 'peons' might be able to post. Let's hope this works. It's great to have a place (thanks Ari) to talk about issues that are local across the state, but of interest to locals everywhere. At times its difficult to know that the heck they're thinking on Cap Hill, but easier to figure when its your town and city government. There are factions in my town that think we ought to pattern after Boulder, like its some kind of success story that should be emulated.
Whatever the case, we can find out here if the solution for something that works in Parker could be effective in Johnstown. As for plastic bags ... replace them with paper or cloth. Refuse to use them and reduce their demand. Force involves cost. Where we pay our government to force us to do something, and we will pay for that coming and going.
-- paul tiger

Did New Deal Cutbacks Harm Economy?

January 28, 2009

Sandra Elliot (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/27/no-such-liberal-conclusion-about-great/) argues:

Liberal economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman stated on ABC's This Week (Nov. 17, 2008) that the economy improved after the New Deal, and that it was FDR's attempt to balance the budget in 1937 that then cut into that progress.

Robert S. McElvanie, an economic scholar at Millsaps College, says in his book The Great Depression that by 1937 production was above 1929 levels, stock prices and profits were up and many agreed the emergency had passed. But then, bowing to conservative demands for a cutback in spending and a balanced budget, FDR caused another downturn.

I posted the following reply in the comments:

It is interesting that Sandra Elliot relies on the authority of one economist with a specific agenda—Paul Krugman—yet she seems entirely uninterested in the works of economists who have actually studied the era in detail. (Elliot invokes Robert McElvaine's book—note the correct spelling—but he is a professor of history, not economics.)

It is true that FDR slightly scaled back some public works. But that is only a tiny aspect of the story. The real reason the economy recovered somewhat in the mid 1930s was that the Supreme Court threw out FDR's National Recovery Administration, FDR mitigated the damage of Hoover's tariffs, and the Federal Reserve's inflationary policy mitigated the harm of FDR's wage-and-price controls.

The real reason the economy again tanked in 1937 and 1938 is that FDR imposed harsher wage controls in a period of renewed monetary contraction. Add to that FDR's disastrous new taxes and his widespread persecution of businesses, and the result was a "capital strike." Economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway calculate that FDR's union legislation alone contributed nearly six percent [meaning six percentage points] to unemployment by 1938 (see Out of Work, page 141).

If Elliot wishes to move beyond her convenient propaganda to the facts, she might consider reading, in addition to Out of Work, Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man; Gene Smiley's Rethinking the Great Depression; Jim Powell's FDR's Folly; or Burton Folsom's New Deal or Raw Deal? It is true that it took Republican Herbert Hoover to devastate the economy, generating unemployment nearing 25 percent by the time he left office. But it is also true that FDR inhibited, rather than promoted, economic recovery through the 1930s.

Here I'll return to Elliot's claims about McElvaine. First, Elliot neglects to mention that, even using the most generous figures, unemployment remained over nine percent. To put this in perspective, today we're worried (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18575087/detail.html) that "Colorado's unemployment rate jumped to 6.1 percent in December." Sure, the economy saw some turn-around under FDR relative to Hoover, but certainly there was no recovery.

What about industrial production? Here's what Amity Shlaes has to say on the matter (see The Forgotten Man, page 395):

What about that oft-cited rising industrial production figure? The boom in industrial production of the 1930s did signal growth, but not necessarily growth of a higher quality than that, say, of a Soviet factory running three shifts. Another datum that we hear about less than industrial production was actually more important: net private investment, the number that captures how many capital goods companies were buying relative to what they already had. At many points during the New Deal, net private investment was not only merely low but negative. Companies were using more capital goods than they were buying.

All this tells us that while some companies were gunning their engines for the moment—that industrial production—they had little hope for productivity gains in the years ahead.

Interestingly, (http://home.millsaps.edu/mcelvrs/) McElvaine runs a (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine) blog for the Huffington Post. So, like Krugman, he's definitely a partisan in the debate. Obviously I have nothing against partisanship per se, as I'm a partisan myself, but when partisanship gets in the way of objective analysis, as it has for Krugman and Elliot, it's a problem.

Comment by Patrick Sperry: There you go again Ari... Using logic, reason, and facts.

Comment by Allen: These issues aside, how does decreasing gov't. spending prove that somehow the economy was fixed? Wouldn't it show that it merely propped things up with underlying problems going unresolved?

Haggard's Miracle

January 29, 2009

(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11577270) "[Former New Life Church pastor Ted] Haggard said that as a Christian, he believed his faith could make him a new man. He was seeking a miracle, said Haggard, who described himself as 'not gay' but a 'heterosexual with issues' who was deeply in love with his wife."

Obviously I do not wish to speculate whether Haggard is really gay or "heterosexual with issues." What he himself has admitted, however, is that, as a married man, he hired a drug-dealing male prostitute (for something or other) and engaged in inappropriate sexual acts with a church volunteer. Clearly the guy has issues.

The practical lesson is that hoping for a miracle to reform one's character is not a good idea. Reforming one's character takes a lot of hard work, self-reflection, and moral pondering (and I've had some practice). Psychological issues require deep introspection, and possibly the help of real psychology (as opposed to, for example, the quackery of Bible-based psychology).

Hoping for a miracle to make you a better person is just an excuse to avoid doing the hard work yourself.

Comment by Bob King: And publicly CLAIMING such a miracle has happened in a way that permits "bidness as usual"... that should provoke quiet skepticism. If not ridicule.

Around Colorado: 1/29/09

January 29, 2009

Tax Hike Measure Coming

Ben DeGrow (http://bendegrow.com/2009/rossputin-bill-ritters-transparent-try-to-set-stage-for-another-tax-hike/) points to Rossputin's (http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/28/a-colorado-budget-shortfall-you-don-t-sa) post predicting:

There's a reason that the first thing Ritter is proposing to do is cut education and prison funding, and "temporarily" suspend the homestead exemption which lowers property tax for many senior citizens, and it's the oldest liberal trick in the book: He's setting the stage for a tax increase proposal "for the children" and with the specter of violent felons roaming the streets unless we go along.

So now the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11575272) editorializes about Ritter's $823 million "budget cuts"—most of which is a reduction of the increase—which the Post believes will be offset by $2.9 billion in federal "free" money.

But that's not nearly enough tax spending for the Post: "The state's tangle of revenue restraints and spending requirements must be unraveled so state legislators can do the jobs they were elected to do and the state's budget can be constructed in a rational way."

In other words, TABOR must be gutted so taxes can be increased, because when you spend your own money, that's irrational, and only politicians can spend your money in a "rational way."

Remove the Devil Horse

Rachel Hultin (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11577271) wants to remove the blue Devil Horse from Denver International Airport. Her Facebook (http://byebyebluemustang.com/) page announces the Heinous Blue Mustang Haiku Challenge.

I say take it down, melt it down, sell it for scrap, or sell it to some dumb sucker who thinks that ugliness makes art hip.

Tax-Funded Employee Unions

Peter Blake (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/29/blake-another-labor-jam-for-ritter/) discusses a proposal to override local union rules for government employees, making unionization more widespread. I think the people paying those salaries should be able to decide the terms of the employment contract.

Climate Change Coordinator

Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/29/carroll-climate-czar-sponsors/) notes that the "$80,000 salary for the governor's new 'climate change coordinator'... will not be paid with tax dollars. Three private foundations will pick up the tab." But using private money to advocate political force is not a lot better than forcibly seizing money to advocate political force. The obvious difference is that the former is properly protected speech.

Food Safety

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/29/self-reporting-is-key-to-safe-food-chain/) editorializes, "The Food and Drug Administration said this week that a Georgia peanut plant knowingly shipped peanut butter that had tested positive for salmonella 12 times in the past two years." Of course the left will take this as a sign that the FDA should control industry more closely. However, in this case the FDA is part of the problem. When the government tells companies they can avoid liability by following certain rules, those rules are sure to be abused. Look, if you knowingly sell poisoned food (and I haven't verified the FDAs claims), then that's a criminal action, and it should be subject to criminal prosecution as well as civil lawsuits.

Coffman Calls for Alternative Stimulus

Congressman Mike Coffman (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11575268) writes, "Congress is right to take action to stimulate the economy, but the American people deserve better than a pork-laden spending frenzy with very little money going to the people who need it most." Yea, Republicans are going to make their comeback by me-tooing the Democrats. Congress should not try to "stimulate" the economy by spending more of other people's money, but rather by removing the political controls that have led to recession and hampered economic growth.

But Coffman does provide a useful service in detailing some of the spending:

Based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis, just $26 billion (7 percent) will be spent in the current fiscal year, and less than half—38 percent—will be spent in the first two years. Even assuming such fiscal measures could be effective, the vast majority of funds in this bill would be spent too late to stimulate the economy anyway.

Democratic leadership promised large amounts for improving roads and bridges, but only $44 billion (about 5 percent) is for transportation infrastructure. Of that, only $30 billion is for highways. There are tens of billions spent mainly to protect or create government jobs. In addition, the National Endowment for the Arts will get $50 million, Americorps $200 million, Amtrak $800 million, grass replacement on the National Mall $200 million, repairs at the Smithsonian $150 million, NASA climate change research $400 million, and ACORN $10 million.

Rural Medicine

Mark Deutchman (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11574410) worries that there aren't enough rural doctors, and indeed "demographers and health care policy researchers acknowledge a serious national shortage of physicians everywhere in the country." Deutchman sees this as a problem for politicians to solve. But maybe the problem is that politicians have created paperwork nightmares through government-driven over-insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare, while subjecting doctors to the arbitrary whims of bureaucrats.

Comment by Allen: So a few green groups with deep pockets directly pay to have their lobbyist no longer be a lobbyist by title but "climate change coordinator" and get direct access to the governor not in the form of a lobbyist but as an "ad visor"? Is this not worse than the crap Cheney and Bush pulled with some energy companies?

Toward European Secularism?

January 30, 2009

Recently I received a bizarre e-mail stating: "Obama will soon discover that government cannot legalize everything that the Bible condemns and then ask for God to bless America. Even though Obama is clever at wrapping himself with religiosity, his presidency could very well lead Americans toward joining European secularism."

I take this to mean that the writer—and no doubt various others—think the American government ought to outlaw everything the Bible condemns; e.g., homosexuality, false idols, back talking to parents, etc.

Recently Leonard Peikoff asked why Americans are so much more religious than Europeans. Part of the answer is that European secularism is synonymous with socialism, or at least socialism-light. In other words, the choices are God-centered religion or state-centered religion; sacrificing the individual to God or the state.

Many religious Americans rightly reject the subjectivism and socialism of the left. Unfortunately, because religion offers no more tenable moral foundation, they are increasingly turning to the subjectivism and socialism of the right.

America ought not move toward European secularism. America should move toward American secularism, and more particularly a secularism that recognizes the sovereignty of the individual.

Around Colorado: 1/30/09

January 30, 2009

Make My Day Better

Colorado Republicans (http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/903/26/) announce: "Republican efforts to extend to the workplace the same rights Colorado citizens already have to protect their homes from violent intruders were stymied by ruling Democrats today [January 28]."

Ritter Right on Immigration

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/30/bring-illegal-immigrants-out-in-open-ritter-says/) reports: "The Democratic governor [Bill Ritter] also said he personally supported a guest worker policy similar to the one former President George W. Bush embraced. Ritter added he endorses a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but that they should not necessarily be first in line." Good for him. Colorado business owners have a right to hire whomever they want, and peaceable immigrants have a right to seek a better life here—as all of our forefathers did. The proper way to end illegal immigration is to make immigration legal.

'Plastic Bag Reduction Education Fund'

You've got to be kidding. What could these Democrats possibly be thinking? The Rocky (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/30/attack-on-plastic-bags-illegal-costly-and/) editorializes:

Merchants would keep half the fee; the rest would underwrite a state "plastic bag reduction education fund . . . for the purpose of educating consumers" about the other part of the bill: an outright ban on plastic bags taking effect July 1, 2012.

The "fee" is almost certainly a tax, as it's not connected to the cost of providing plastic bags (which run about a penny apiece) or disposing of them. Besides, half of the revenue from the fees would support the "education" project, which is also unrelated to the cost or handling of the bags.

Because the 6-cent arbitrary charge appears to be a tax, it must be presented to voters for approval, according to TABOR.

Moreover, a plastic bag ban actually hurts the environment by encouraging paper bag use. But the fundamental reason to oppose the ban, as I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/around-colorado-12809.html) noted, is that it violates individual rights of property and free exchange.

Rosen on Pera

Mike Rosen (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/30/rosen-rein-in-pera/) criticizes the state's pension plan. I'd like to see a history of how pensions even got started. They strike me as a stupid idea, for the very reasons PERA is struggling: pensions promise future payments when future revenues are not known and cannot possibly be known (a problem worse in the private sector, where businesses can face bankruptcy). Why not simply do away with the pension for all new employees, and pay them commensurately more so that they can invest however they want?

Force as Recreation

The "co-chairs of the Denver Recreation Center Task Force" (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/30/novarro-and-lehmann-rec-center-ideas-ready-for/) talk about how the city of Denver can better provide people's recreation, as though it were perfectly obvious that a legitimate governmental function is to provide (tax subsidized) recreation. Might it be possible that recreation is one of those things that people can pursue without the "help" of politicians?

Political Growth

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11586176) reports that Colorado politicians want to "help" the economy through discriminatory taxes, tax-subsidized loans, tax-subsidized training, and tax hikes. This is the exact opposite of what is really needed: economic liberty.

Harsanyi, Sirota

David Harsanyi (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11585798) criticizes the new bailout package.

Meanwhile, David Sirota (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11585800) claims that George W. Bush drove the American economy "over [a] laissez-faire cliff." What? Bush dramatically expanded federal spending, federal entitlements, and federal economic controls. His policies were the opposite of "laissez faire." But Sirota is not exactly (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirotas-statistics-fail-to-vindicate.html) known for having the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Comment by Allen: I've long wondered why Denver hasn't moved to form a regional parks commission with neighboring counties. That would be a much better fit for things like it's mountain parks. Then again, I'm assuming people in Jefferson county use those parks more than anyone else and that folks from Douglas or Arapahoe or other places also use them just as much as Denver. Maybe that's not the case?

'Not a Meer Man'

January 31, 2009

Recently I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/did-god-save-flight-1549.html) pointed out the inanity of claiming that God saved the plane that recently crash-landed in the Hudson. Why did God allow the plane to go down in the first place, and why does God allow others to die horrible deaths in crashes?

I got my answer from an anonymous poster in the comments:

The answer is in your question.

Because it benefits all.

God makes His sun to rise on the good and the evil and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.

To you this may make no sense at all, as most would never send (or give) any type of benefit to anyone except to those who can benefit themselves in someway. God is not like this. God is not like you or me, as He is God, not a meer man.

If you will read the accounts of other Flight 1549 survivors, you will see that most have a "new lease" on life. It is no longer about themselves but about others, about living life to its fullest, in the few seconds before impact,there was no one saying, how many turns does the world make a million years, is the bail out plan going to work, I wish I could just divorce my spouse... or even the dreaded "I dont believe in God so it doesn't matter as I am smarter than most".

I seriously doubt anybody was thinking that, They were all thinking about if they were going to die. The rest of life was unimportant, God became vastly important,as it states all (most anyway) were praying to GOD.

I see; God made their plane crash because he was doing them a favor. Praise be to God! Think of how much greater favor God is doing for those who don't survive, but who burn to death in fiery crashes! They're really not thinking about normal daily life, at all.

Seriously:

1. While it's true that near-death experiences encourage some people to reevaluate their lives, very often that doesn't happen. More importantly, it doesn't take a near-death experience to prompt this. I and many other people I know have fundamentally reevaluated their lives without the "benefit" of a near-death experience. Here on Planet Reality, if somebody subjected others to a near-death experience in order to prompt them to rethink life, the person would rightly be sent to prison for a long, long time.

2. The idea that people aren't thinking about themselves in a near-death experience is ludicrous. The most common reaction, I suspect, the nearly universal reaction, is something like, "Oh crap oh crap I'm gunna die!" Those who pray to God are typically praying something like, "God, please save me from a fiery death!" Sure, people will, in time of death, regret losing any loved one who happens to be stuck in the same horrifying situation. This is expected. But the focus is still extreme fear of losing one's personal values.

3. The idea that one lives life to the fullest implies that one is living one's own life. Setting goals, establishing loving relationships, and enjoying one's life are the result of taking one's self seriously, not of forgetting about one's self.

4. The idea of the anonymous comment seems to be that anything God does is the right thing to do, because we cannot possibly understand what God is up to. Here I point out merely that this is the perfect self-reinforcing dogma. Anything whatsoever "proves" God's existence. Did a plane land safely? Well, God wanted it to. Did a plane crash land with no casualties? God wanted them to reevaluate their lives. Did a plane crash, killing all aboard, Again, God knows what he's doing, and he was doing it for the victims' benefit. God is "not a mere man," so we lowly humans cannot possibly understand him. We must simply believe that he exists and that he guides the universe, and human reason cannot possibly explain it. The only proper reply is to pronounce anonymous's claim to be vile nonsense.

Comment by Harold: Well, it's very vile. And honestly, it's a sign of a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ) psychological weakness. If this alleged entity was so powerful, couldn't it just alter people's minds so they behave "correctly" without going through all this? Blank out.

Around Colorado: 1/31/09

January 31, 2009

Stimulating Wildlife

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/31/stimulus-to-pump-life-into-wildlife-refuge/) "The massive federal stimulus package would rain dollars on Colorado's wildlife sanctuaries, shoring up visitor centers, tour routes and wildlife habitat, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Friday."

Yet if we are attuned to what Henry Hazlitt calls the unseen, we realize that all this money "raining down" is actually diverting resources away from other spending and investments. Expanding such spending with pork-laden projects will offer some people a more enjoyable recreation experience. But "stimulate" the economy it will not do, as it will only take resources away from where they are most desperately needed to turn the economy around.

Moreover, there's no good reason to force those who don't use the favored recreational areas to subsidize those who do. Instead, recreational areas should be funded by those who use them.

Wouldn't it be nice if Colorado journalists thought of their job as something other than to serve as political lap-dogs? Very few seem to. Which may be one reason why they're making themselves extinct.

Reason on Plastic Bags

Linda Gorman pointed out a Reason (http://www.reason.org/commentaries/smithheisters_20080417.shtml) article that reveals some of the flaws of plastic-bag bans.

Owens Versus Churchill

And here I thought Bill Owens and Ward Churchill were a couple of has-beens. But Churchill (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/31/owens-minces-no-words-on-ex-prof/) is suing to get his job at CU back, and this has dragged the former governor into court proceedings. Churchill refused to shake hands with Owens, but Owens definitely won the fight, saying, "In retirement, he's starting to look a lot like Michael Moore... Ward Churchill is a plagiarist and a fraud, and, regrettably, we continue to pay for his deception."

Rocky Blasts "Stimulus"

Even calling it "simulus" spending is a lie—this pork spending will damage, rather than help, the economy.

The Rocky Mountain News does a good job pointing out some of the basic problems:

The 647-page, $819 billion bill that passed the House—close to what Congress spends to run the government in a normal year—sprawls all over the place, defers major spending to a time when we hope the recession has run its course, greatly expands the federal government's role in health care, education and energy, and much of the bill is not likely to be temporary.

But the larger problem is simply that the federal government cannot "stimulate" economic growth by forcibly transferring wealth from some to others. It can only fund politically-favored projects at the expense of economically justifiable ones.

Barack Obama Caesar

(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11598738) "President Barack Obama today promised to lower mortgage costs, offer job-creating loans for small businesses, get credit flowing and rein in free-spending executives as he readies a new road map for spending billions from the second installment of the financial rescue plan."

Oh, I guess I didn't realize we just elected an economic dictator.

Debating the Bailout

Today the Denver Post (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/01/30/stimulating-the-economy-6-letters/) published several letters today that included the following comments:

"Cutting spending will cause aggregate demand in our economy to further shrink, and may well put us further down the road to economic collapse. We urgently need to support government spending on domestic projects, such as infrastructure renovation, etc. Spending on domestic projects will create jobs, increase tax revenues, and enable our economy to recover from the current crisis."—John S. Dixon

But Dixon ignores the obvious fact that federal spending diverts funds from other spending and investment. Rather than flow to highest-priority investments that would create long-term economic prosperity, the funds will go to political pet-projects and special interests. A couple other comments at least point out that "free" federal money is not really free:

"[T]he dollar would be debased and cheapened, and the ways in which the resulting inflation in prices would furtively steal money from the pockets of each one of us, rich or poor."—Jim Muhm

"...Colorado gets nothing from Washington except what it will need to pay for someday through higher taxes."—Brian Richter

Meanshile, the Gazette (http://www.freecolorado.com/index.htm) argues, "It appears this bill, while sold as economic stimulus, has been transformed into a massive and perhaps permanent increase in federal spending that includes everything that has been on the wish lists for years."

New Tariff Wars?

January 31, 2009

Herbert Hoover's tariffs were a major cause of the Great Depression. You'd think that, occasionally, we might learn something from history. But not today's Republicans. Diana Hsieh (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/01/link-o-rama_29.shtml) points to an (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4306018/France-targets-Coca-Cola-in-escalating-cheese-wars.html) article in the Telegraph:

The French government is facing calls to slap a massive import tax on Coca-Cola in retaliation for punitive American duties levelled on the salty, blue-veined, sheep cheese roquefort.

The American measures were taken as part of a trade dispute, now known as "cheese wars", in which the Bush administration took action against the European Union's ban on imports of US hormone-treated beef.

Last week, America imposed a 100 per cent import duty on a long list of EU products, but singled roquefort out for a 300 per cent tariff.

"Symbol versus symbol," said Philippe Folliot, a French member of parliament whose Tarn constituency contains many roquefort producers. "Since the United States has decided to surtax one of the most ancient (cheese) appellations, I think that the French government, with the European Union, must think about a heavy specific tax on imports of Coca-Cola concentrates produced in the US."

The correct response on tariffs is always the same, regardless of what other countries are doing: lower them. The last thing we need right now is a new round of tariff wars.

Comment by Allen: Wasn't the US given the green light by the WTO to do these in response to the EU's ban on the beef? So if the French add some tariff in response to avalid WTO one won't they get hit all the more? And is there actually any CocaCola concentrate imported from the US into France? No matter the specifics it's hard to see how either side ends up better off in all of this.

L. Ron Simpson

February 1, 2009

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485304,00.html) "Twentieth Century Fox television would not comment on whether Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart on 'The Simpsons,' will face disciplinary action following her voice message urging Scientologists, in Bart's voice, to attend an upcoming conference."

This is a legitimate contractual matter; Fox pays the lady quite a lot (I presume) to provide Bart's voice, and use of the voice elsewhere reduces its value.

Why Scientologists think that using Bart's voice might help them is another matter entirely. But I guess Bart Simpson is taken a lot more seriously in the culture than L. Ron Hubbard.

Around Colorado: 2/1/09

February 1, 2009

Udall Squishes on Bailout

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/31/udall-open-adding-infrastructure-money-stimulus-pl/) "U.S. Sen. Mark Udall says he's open to adding more money for infrastructure projects to the Senate version of the stimulus package."

This is a profound disappointment. When Bush was in office, Udall (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/letter-to-mark-udall-regarding-bailout.html) voted against the bailout. Now apparently he's voting for it. I guess the difference is that now the special-interests are his special buddies.

We do not need more federal spending. It will not "stimulate" the economy. It will only divert precious resources away from the market spending and investment that would establish a basis for long-term economic recovery.

It is also misleading of the Associated Press article to focus on "infrastructure," when that is but a small portion of the total package.

Vote "no," Senator, if you have any principles.

School Drills

The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/01/dont-overdo-school-drills/) editorializes about a bill to establish expanded school safety drills that one "superintendent was concerned that, considering that many violent incidents in schools are perpetrated by students, the drills would simply alert a would-be assailant of the evacuation zone and lockdown procedures.

This is not a legitimate concern, if the drills are properly conducted. I heard a presentation from (http://www.directmeasures.com/management-alon.htm) Alon Stivi, who described safety drills as involving select adults with communication tools who could change evacuation routes and procedures based on the nature and location of the threat. Any student who knew this would be less likely to try an attack, as it would be far less likely to succeed.

Will on Social Security

George Will (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/01/will-congressman-all-must-face-frightening-entitle/) points out that Social Security, by inflating the cost of hiring somebody, "suppresses job-creation." Currently the tax takes in more than is needed for the program, diverting resources to other federal spending, but the burden will soon surpass the tax, meaning that "the true national debt is $56 trillion, not the widely reported $10 trillion."

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/socseclinks.html) written, the real answer to Social Security is to slowly phase it out. Everybody currently collecting benefits should continue to collect them. But the pay-out age for new recipients should slowly be increased, say by three or four months every year, until the system is phased out. This would be the least-painful way to reduce the tax burden while giving people time to prepare for retirement.

Absent reform, not only will the costs of hiring employees rise to debilitating levels, but fewer younger workers will want to work and see such a huge portion of their paycheck sucked up by the welfare state.

Health Welfare

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11601806) reports that the poor economy is stressing not only health welfare but service providers who are forced by the federal government to offer care without compensation.

The federal government seems set to massively fund health welfare this year. Many in the state are already clamoring for higher taxes to fund welfare spending. The left argues that increased "need" justifies more forcible redistribution of wealth. Those who continue to take economic liberty seriously point out that more forcible redistribution of wealth increases claims of need while undermining the ability of producers to meet it.

Post Gets Nervous

When even the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11586391) gets nervous about the proposed federal special-interest spending, we know something's up.

Bell Muffles Liberty

The Bell Policy Center, absurdly named after the Liberty Bell, promotes the opposite of liberty, political economic controls. Amazingly, the Bell's Wade Buchanan actually (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11586387) acknowledges that state politicians can cut some programs without causing the sky to fall. However, he wants to maintain health welfare, tax-funded education, corporate welfare (programs to "help stimulate economic and business activity"), and "programs that expand opportunities for kids and working families," whatever that means.

Wade tweaks the Independence Institute for "dust[ing] off a 4-year-old report" on spending cuts. He does have a point: we need in-depth analysis of this year's budget. It's too bad that the news media have failed to provide it.

Sign of the Times

A Colorado legislator (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11595625) wants to send a lobbyist to Washington, D.C. As in, Colorado taxpayers would get to fund a lobbyist so that state politicians could beg for more handouts from federal politicians, again funded with tax dollars.

Or we could decide that we live in America and that this nonsense has gotten quite out of hand.

Comment by Anthony: "As I've written, the real answer to Social Security is to slowly phase it out." How about this? 1) Eliminate both halves (employer and employee) of the social security tax. 2) Allow, for the next 10 years, for people to voluntarily pay both halves of the social security tax on whatever income level they choose, up to their inflation-adjusted average earned income over their life history (this will allow anyone short of the 40 quarters of coverage to get them). 3) Eliminate all "refundable tax credits", many of which were passed in part under the theory that they were returning social security taxes. 4) Adjust income taxes and/or (preferably) cut spending to balance the budget.

Comment by Jim: Ironically, state legislatures had previously been able to see that the state's interest was advocated in Congress. Instead of lobbyists, they sent Senators.

Hour of the Powerless

February 2, 2009

The AP (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/01/televangelism-empire-chaos-over-family-split/) reports that the massive Crystal Cathedral and its television ministry is having financial trouble. "Members often tie their donations to the pastor, not the institution, said Nancy Ammerman, a sociologist of religion at Boston University."

If I were a Christian, I would wonder whether such fancy spending is really what Christian living is all about. I mean, have you seen the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Cathedral) place?

People should be free to give away their money to whomever they please. But the fact that many seem to give it away to a forceful personality raises questions about their motives. It's pretty sad if you've got nothing better to do with your l life than sit around watching some demagogue ask for your money to do "God's" work.

Comment by Harold: From what I've seen, it's gorgeous. Too bad, lol ;-o

Comment by Favela Cranshaw: Are you excluding God from the list of powerful personalities? Aren't Schuller, Robertson, Graham et al just his stand-ins? I think belief in God is the need for people to quell their fear of taking the responsibility for enjoying their "gift' of being alive and their willingness to suppress the natural desires they experience.

Around Colorado 2/2/09

February 2, 2009

Wish List for Funds

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/02/boulder-hearing-offers-polis-wish-list-for-money/) "A community hearing Sunday on the proposed federal economic stimulus package drew a shopping list of requests ranging from smart energy grids and wildfire fighting help to Medicaid funds and a single payer health system."

The headline for this Rocky Mountain News story is, "Boulder hearing offers Polis wish list for stimulus money." Isn't it great that people have so many wishes for how to spend other people's money. Here's my wish list:

1. I wish we lived in a nation in which more people acted like citizens rather than leeches.

2. I wish politicians thought of their job as protecting individual rights rather than robbing some to pay off others.

3. I wish journalists would stop calling the scheme to massively redistribute more wealth a "stimulus package."

"If wishes were horses,
Beggars would ride;
If wishes were fishes,
We'd all have some fried."

Saving Ba-a-a-a-d

Here's (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11604839) one from the Associated Press: "Americans are hunkering down and saving more. For a recession-battered economy, it couldn't be happening at a worse time. Economists call it the 'paradox of thrift.' What's good for individuals—spending less, saving more—is bad for the economy when everyone does it."

What a load of nonsense. The only paradox here is why newspapers wonder why they're failing when they keep publishing such pathetic articles.

As George Reisman (http://georgereisman.com/blog/2009/01/falling-prices-are-antidote-to.html) explains, a recession naturally gives rise to price breaks (unless politicians hamper the process), which eventually gets people back to regular rates of savings and spending.

Of course, some people might figure out that they actually need a long-term savings plan, in which case the rate of savings may permanently move up. This is not a problem, but rather a healthy development to which the economy, left unhampered, will adjust. A major problem we have in our economy is that the Federal Reserve has largely destroyed the natural link between savings and investment.

The AP is looking at short-term economic statistics while utterly ignoring the relevant economic processes.

Free Speech

The Rocky Mountain News correctly (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/02/54-over-and-out/) editorializes: "Only one section of Amendment 54 should survive: the provision setting up a searchable online database of sole-source government contractors. That's an unobjectionable, good-government measure. The rest of the amendment, however, raises serious constitutional issues. To begin with, campaign contributions are the equivalent of political speech..." It's pretty sad that "conservatives" have gotten into the game of limiting free speech through campaign laws.

The Seen and the Unseen

State Senator Dan Gibbs obviously has never read his Hazlitt. Gibbs writes, "By infusing millions of dollars into critical bridge and road projects in every corner of Colorado, FASTER [Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation & Economic Recovery] will create tens of thousands of jobs." No, it won't. It will redirect resources away from other jobs to politically-favored ones.

The Greed Card

Letter writer Richard M. Wright of Lakewood argues: "The contention by Barry W. Poulson that the state can save as much as $600 million a year by program suspension, consolidation and reform and thereby balance the budget without raising taxes or gutting TABOR is simply another trussed up diatribe by a greedy, self-centered individual with no apparent sense of social responsibility."

Yes, it's "greedy" to think that people should be able to keep more of their own money to spend, invest, or give away as they see fit. Bad, bad, Barry.

Stop the Bailout: Salazar Promotes Special-Interest Warfare

February 2, 2009

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090202/COLUMNISTS/902019995/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Salazar%20promotes%20special-interest%20warfare) was published February 2, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Salazar promotes special-interest warfare

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Shame on Congressman John Salazar for (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/co03_salazar/PR_012809.html) voting to pass the special-interest monstrosity deceptively called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by the House on January 28. Barack Obama and the Democrats are following in George W. Bush's footsteps in expanding the power of the federal government at the expense of the free economy.

If politicians actually cared about economic recovery, they would remove the political controls that have caused the recession and hampered economic growth. Through myriad controls, politicians have encouraged risky home loans, discouraged the formation of new companies, pushed up the cost of health care and energy, and buried businesses and taxpayers under mountains of paperwork. True economic recovery would consist of repealing those controls and curbing the diversion of precious resources to bureaucrats.

The whole idea that politicians can right the economy with "stimulus" spending is a fallacy. The economy is not a wind-up toy.

The recession is not the fundamental problem: it is the consequence of malinvestment promoted by the federal government. For example, through such measures as the Community Reinvestment Act and easy-money Federal Reserve policies, the federal government encouraged many to buy homes they couldn't afford and weren't prepared to maintain. Federal politicians thus encouraged too much investment to flow to properties, construction, home-improvement stores, etc., and away from other industries. A recession is a period when people recognize the nature of the malinvestment and act to correct it by adjusting investment, production, and employment.

All federal "stimulus" spending accomplishes is to replace earlier malinvestments with new ones, while robbing the free economy of the resources it needs for true, long-term recovery. After all, that "stimulus" money comes from somewhere. The Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf) estimates the bill "would increase federal budget deficits... by $816 billion over the 2009-2019 period."

Deficit spending means the federal government is borrowing money that its earners would otherwise spend or invest in the free economy. Deficit spending must be repaid through future taxes or inflation, the most insidious form of taxation.

So where is that money headed, anyway? We don't know quite what the final bill will look like, and we do not doubt that the Senate will further load it up with pork. Part of the package consists of tax breaks, which we don't have a problem with, though we point out that tax breaks without commensurate spending cuts again leads to deficit spending. Figure that new government spending will amount to around three-quarters of a trillion dollars.

Of that money, only a portion will be spent within the next couple of years, while the rest will supposedly "stimulate" the economy into 2019, though we hope the recession has ended well before then. This indicates the basic problem with the bill. It is not fundamentally about "stimulating" the economy, it is about paying off special interests.

The most popular spending is for infrastructure. The Associated Press (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_11577053) reports figures of "$30 billion for highway and bridge construction and repair," "$31 billion to build and repair federal buildings and other public infrastructure," "$19 billion in water projects," and we might include here "$21 billion for school modernization." That's about $100 billion, a small fraction of the package.

One thing we can count on is that even infrastructure spending will be wasteful, as funds are spent for political purposes rather than economic ones. Anyway, don't we already pay the gasoline tax for roads and property taxes for schools? Where's all that money going? The federal "stimulus" spending will help free up that money for yet more special-interest payoffs, so that Obama can help Democrats all the way down the line.

Meanwhile, federal politicians want to spend around $150 billion more on health welfare, $43 billion more to pay people not to work, and $20 billion more on food stamps. In other words, the "stimulus" spending devotes more than twice as much resources to expanding the welfare state than for building infrastructure. But rewarding people for not working and for remaining poor does not stimulate the economy. You get more of what you subsidize, and that goes for unemployment and poverty as well.

Do you see how the game works? First, federal politicians eat up a huge portion of people's paychecks in payroll and income taxes, so that many struggle to pay off debt and save for hard times. Then, having largely destroyed people's ability and incentive to save, the same federal politicians kindly step in to help their victims through the recession that federal policies caused. And this is what is known today as "stimulating" the economy.

The American people have trusted the likes of John Salazar for far too long. Some become blinded by the misleading rhetoric of "stimulus." Others just want a handout.

But for Americans who care about economic liberty and individual rights and who want to preserve a free country, now is the time to say enough is enough. Give us liberty.

Hitchens, D'Souza Debate (Again)

February 3, 2009

Does God exist? Jean Torkelson (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/02/torkelson-to-believe-or-not-to-believe-hitchens/) reviews the recent debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. I didn't attend the debate, as I didn't want to surrender $10 plus an evening to go.

Here's a telling line from D'Souza: "To me, doubt is intrinsic to religious belief. 'Belief' is not the same thing as 'knowledge.' If I knew for sure, I wouldn't have belief. Belief means trusting in God even (with) doubts. That doesn't make belief unreasonable or irrational."

But there is a huge difference between believing something is probably true based on spotty evidence, and believing that God exists based on no evidence. Of course D'Souza claims that various facts about the natural world demonstrate the existence of God, but the natural facts he cites do not support his supernatural conclusion. Notice how D'Souza tries to have it both ways: he claims to prove the existence of God, but in the end he claims that such a proof is unnecessary. God is not only unproved but unprovable and conceptually incoherent. But, as D'Souza makes clear, he will go on "trusting in God" even though he has no good reason for doing so, and such a practice is indeed unreasonable and irrational.

Comment by Harold: This seems to be a statement from "Reformed Epistemology". (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/) This guy has got it figured it out and quotes a relevant (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11714522&postID=460033997949990126&isPopup=true) comment from one of the apologists. (It's the January 04, 2009 9:49AM comment) In any case, I agree with your assessment on his motivations. Why not say the same things about Allah, or Isis & Osiris, or (my favorite) Athena? But then again, don't terms like proof presuppose an objective reality, which D'Souza ultimately rejects?

Comment by Bob King: As a person of faith, I take strong issue with "faith" being used to excuse doctrines and beliefs that are false to fact.

Around Colorado 2/3/09

February 3, 2009

Rosen, Tancredo Take Financial Losses

Both the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/02/investments-go-bad-talk-show-host-rosen/) Rocky Mountain News and the (http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11614219) Denver Post report that Mike Rosen, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and other clients of the Boulder-based Agile Group took big financial losses. Apparently the company had some of its investments tied up with Bernard Madoff and Tom Petters, both of whom have been accused of fraud. As Westword (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/02/dow_jones_subscribers_know_al.php) notes, Al Lewis broke the story.

Rosen mentioned on his radio show this morning that some people called him to blast conservatives and capitalism. Well, the current financial crisis is partly the fault of conservatives, to the extent that they sanctioned or endorsed the federal economic interventions that encouraged risky loans and real-estate spending and promoted an easy-money policy by the Federal Reserve. But certainly this is not a failure of capitalism.

To the extent that the losses are the result of fraud, that's properly a crime, and the government's legitimate role is to root out fraud. To the extent that the losses are the result of legal risk, well, that's the market, though the market has become a lot more capricious due to political controls. People who think they can outperform the market routinely lose money, though of course sometimes they make a lot of money. My wife and I have already decided that we're going to first focus on paying off our mortgage, then invest a portion of our earnings in a straight S&P 500 fund. I'm smart enough to realize that I'm not smart enough to beat the market.

If somebody is asking to take your money, your first reaction should be deep skepticism, followed by a request for complete information. Returns that sound too good to be true probably are, at least in the long run.

Democratic Tax Problems

The Rocky (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/03/tax-troubles-sequel/) reminds us that Democrats such as Tom Daschle have trouble figuring out and paying their taxes. The worst "punishment" they face is the possibility of not getting appointed to a high-paying cabinet job where they get help spend the tax dollars of everyone else. Meanwhile, the rest of us face fines and potential criminal penalties. The income tax should not be simplified, it should not be replaced, it should be scrapped.

Long Live Henry Hazlitt

Alice Madden, our new "climate change coordinator," (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/03/carroll-hard-swallow/) said, "One of the most exciting aspects to this challenge is that almost every solution has the added benefit of creating jobs. In these tough economic times, I can't think of a better win-win for us all." Would it be too much to ask that a single Democrat bother to learn basic economics? I guess Madden's new middle name is "In Wonderland." Look, robbing Peter to pay Paul does not create jobs; it just replaces a market job with a politically-favored one.

Legislature

A bill to force use of carbon-monoxide detectors (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/02/carbon-monoxide-detector-bill-advances/) advanced, even though it's a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/buy-carbon-monoxide-detector.html) bad idea.

At the federal level, Democrats are (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11613552) trying to increase welfare spending on mental health.

(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11613554) "The state Senate president on Monday cautiously threw his support behind a Republican plan to phase out the widely loathed business personal-property..."

Some legislators want to (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11614290) remove state spending cap: "And they have found new hope in a legal opinion that says their target, known as the Arves-choug-Bird limit, is not protected by the state constitution... [T]he provision limits growth in spending from the state's general fund... to no more than 6 percent a year." Or we could try, you know, letting people use their own money as they see fit.

New Deal Harmed Economy: Two More

February 3, 2009

Economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanion unjustifiably (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html) praise welfare spending under the New Deal, and they unjustifiably lament the lack of antitrust prosecution. (Government-induced cartels are bad, but successful free-market mergers take advantage of economies of scale and better management.) However, the economists' unemployment figures tell the basic story about the New Deal:

The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.

The economists correctly note that wage and business controls raised unemployment and harmed the economy.

Amity Shlaes also (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002760.html) criticizes the New Deal in an article for the Washington Post:

But many of the jobs that the early New Deal produced were not merely temporary but also limited in economic value. It was in these years that the political term "boondoggle," to describe costly make-work, was coined. It came from "boondoggling," the word for leather craft projects subsidized by New Deal work-relief programs. As was the case for the Troeller brothers, work-relief earnings were usually not sufficient to offset other Depression losses.

Shlaes also points out that, as FDR pushed out private utilities with tax-subsidized ones, so Obama is trying to push out private internet with subsidized service.

Low-Carb Diet, Food Stamp Budget

February 3, 2009

See links to updates below.

MEDIA RELEASE

ACTIVIST PLANS LOW-CARB DIET ON FOOD STAMP BUDGET
New Diet Protests Food Stamp Increases

A healthy diet is achievable on a food stamp budget, and Ari Armstrong plans to prove it, again. Armstrong, who previously spent a month eating for $2.57 per day—see (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/10/7news.html) —will spend February 4-10 eating a highly nutritious, low-carb diet for less than food stamps provide.

Armstrong said, "Not only has Congress increased the food stamp budget since my $2.57 per day diet, but the so-called 'stimulus' package calls for additional food-stamp funds. Enough is enough. I oppose any increases to the food stamp budget, and call for the program to be replaced with voluntarily funded food banks, which offer more nutritious food at lower cost."

Armstrong's new diet, unlike his previous one, will be low-carb, roughly following the advice of such writers as Gary Taubes and similar to "paleo" or "cave-man" diets. The diet will consist of meat, dairy, eggs, vegetables, fruit, nuts, olive oil, chocolate, and spices. It will not contain any grains, vegetable oils, hydrogenated fat, potatoes, or processed sugar.

Armstrong will limit his daily budget to $4.74 per day, less than food stamps provide to a single individual. The Department of Agriculture—see (http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm) http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm—offers a family of four $588 per month, or $4.74 per person per day. (The food stamp allotment is reduced for those deemed able to fund some of their own food.) Armstrong will not accept any free food, and he will shop only at nearby regular grocery stores. He will track all his purchases and receipts at FreeColorado.com.

"With the previous diet, my goal was to minimize daily expenses. With the new diet my goal is to show that a very healthy diet is possible on a limited budget. The cost of my diet will actually be inflated, not only because I'll be eating no free food, but because a week's diet is not able to take advantage of bulk purchases of sales items," Armstrong pointed out. "I've been known to purchase 40 pounds of bananas, a dozen squash, or twenty pounds of meat when they're on sale; obviously that's not possible for a single week."

Part of the motivation to track the new diet was a recent CNN report—see (https://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/02/02/food.stamps.economy/index.html) —in which a woman on food stamps complains, "We get like the mac and cheese, which is dehydrated cheese—basically food that's no good for you health wise... Everything is high in sodium and trans fats... and that's all we basically can afford. There's not enough assistance to eat healthy and maintain a healthy weight."

Armstrong replied, "That's nonsense, and I'm prepared to prove it. I'm frankly irritated that some food stamp recipients waste our tax dollars on overpriced junk food, then complain about their grocery budget. I'll make the following offer. For anybody on food stamps who complains that they can't afford good food, I'll be more than happy to evaluate your entire monthly budget, including your grocery budget, and recommend judicious cuts, limited to the first five people who reply."

* * *

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-461-per-day.html) February 4: Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet: $4.61 Per Day

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-disclaimer.html) February 5: Disclaimer

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-472-per-day.html) February 6: $4.72 Per Day

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-success.html) February 11: Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet a Success

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/westword-covers-low-carb-food-stamp.html) Westword Covers Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet

(http://www.boulderweekly.com/20090219/cuisine3.html) February 19: Boulder Weekly Op-Ed, "Eating Well on Food Stamps"

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/9news-covers-low-carb-food-stamp-diet.html) 9News Covers 'Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet'

Comment by Jim: Excellent idea. I hope that you post some videos to YouTube about what you are eating and the choices that you are making during the month.

Comment by Monica: Wonderful, Ari—can't wait to hear more. I've posted your media release on my blog here: http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2009/02/what-can-you-buy-on-food-stamps.html I've blogged extensively on the issue of farm subsidies and price support (which have opposite effects for the prices of foods—subsidization lowers prices while price support and tariffs increase prices). http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2009/01/vision-of-laissez-faire-corn-production.html http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2009/01/uncle-sam-wants-your-raisins.html http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2009/01/subsidies-for-billionaires-and.html http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2008/12/king-corn.html http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2008/12/pondering-return-of-buffalo.html Essentially, the price of sugar, raisins and milk are raised through price supports, government seizure of products, and/or import tariffs. Meanwhile grains, high fructose corn syrup, and possibly meat are artifically lower than they would be due to subsidies—even with the ethanol industry, I think. Honestly, I think that even absent an ethanol industry or subsidies, corn products would still be more highly priced than they are today based on pre-subsidy prevalence of these items. The current subsidies not only lower the price, they spur more production than there would be, which further lowers the price. Current land use practices are a complete anomaly in farming history, which have resulted in the USDA's CRP program to pull marginal land out of production. Ethanol does raise the price of corn for foods, but I think it's difficult to make the case that in a free market with no subsidies and no ethanol support that corn would even be this cheap—despite the ethanol prop-up. One only comes to the conclusion that ethanol makes food more expensive within the context of the subsidy programs of the past 40 years. Without those, I'm not even confident that corn would be around to the extent that it is. I'll be writing an article on farm policy, with some treatment of results in food prices, for an article in The Objective Standard.

Comment by Anonymous: Please do photograph every meal! Seeing all the shopping items will be one thing. An array of 21 tasty-looking nutritious meals will have many times more impact.

Comment by Anonymous: I hope you succeed in your quest, though I think it would be more fair to do the experiment for a whole month.
I am a mother who recieves food stamps, and I refuse to feed my children junk of any kind, so I never buy processed foods, I buy organic as much as possible, and lean more towards meat than grain. I know it is possible to make healthy choices on food stamps, however, I also have to supplement our food allotment for a family of four. They give us about $540.00, and we spend more like 700.00 a month on food. Perhaps I could get by on less if I didn't buy organic, but I will not feed my children poison, so I'm just not going to stop buying organic.
Good luck, I for one, and rooting for you.
Roxanne

Comment by Anonymous: I'm waiting with bated breath to find out about these mythical voluntarily funded food banks that actually have healthy food to offer. I haven't seen one yet. Why? Because they can't store perishable food long-term, that's why. But hey, if you think they exist, let's hear about them. I'm so sorry you have issues with helping low-income people survive well. I hope you have as many issues with funding stupid wars that do nothing but secure an oil supply we shouldn't even need by now, get a bunch of our young men and women killed and foment ill will toward us all over the globe. OK, Saddam's gone, but seriously. We haven't even gotten rid of the Taliban. On the other hand, thanks for proving that LC is possible on a food stamp budget. Too bad your average poor person believes the government when it tells them what a healthy diet is. Good luck convincing them otherwise when you've already made it clear you have no respect for them.

Comment by Anonymous: I am married with 2 teens-19 and nearly 17. I really get upset when I hear people who are receiving benefits complain. My husband works 2 jobs to support us and he makes decent money- enough for us to never be considered for anykind of gov't. support. I've successfully fed my family of 4 a decent healthy diet while maintaining a stockpile of food in the cupboards and in the fridge and freezer for approx. 300.00 a month for a few years now despite the continual rise in food costs. I work every week at scanning the sales and circulars and matching up coupons etc. just so we can eat well and eat the foods we like to eat and still maintain this budget. I could feed us like kings daily on 500 or other amounts monthly that are being referenced. I cant understand why our govts. (both state and local) do not require food stamp recipients to take some courses in budget management, nutrition, food shopping and cooking in order to receive benefits? I say hats off to Ari and his wife for making an effort and trying to show everyone that it IS possible to eat well on very little but it does take some effort on your part ;)

Comment by bbrooke: When I saw the headline, I thought for sure you'd be mentioned in the article! Eating Well on a Downsized Food Budget
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/health/03brod.html?em

Comment by Imee: I haven't been on a food stamp diet but I'm pretty sure it's feasible. My family for a time couldn't afford decent food so we survived on canned goods and such just to save money. Food stamps make it easier to afford more nutritious foods instead.

Comment by Ari: "Imee" comments are hopelessly confused. First, usually canned goods are not economical. Second, many canned foods are "decent." I regularly buy two particular types of canned foods—spaghetti sauce and coconut milk—that are highly nutritious, economical, and yummy. (I've found the best prices for both those goods at Target.) Finally, as I proved, it's not the case that food stamps make it "easier to afford more nutritious foods." Usually they make it easier to afford processed junk food.

Bailouts Versus Free Speech

February 4, 2009

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/04/conservative-groups-declare-obamas-stimulus-war-prayer/) reports:

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

However, forcing people to fund schools that do allow "religious worship" violates their free speech rights. We have the right not to finance the propagation of ideas with which we disagree.

There is, of course, an obvious solution to this that violates no one's rights of free speech. Reject the bailout.

Around Colorado 2/4/09

February 4, 2009

Seeing Red Over Green Jobs

One more time: transferring money from the free economy to politically-favored jobs does not "create jobs," it destroys some jobs and replaces them with others. Brad Collins, executive director of the American Solar Energy Society in Boulder, joins the list of those who apparently have never heard of Henry Hazlitt. His famous book is called Economics In One Lesson. Read it.

Collins writes,

During these precarious economic times marked by declining business revenues, widespread job losses and struggling families, we need to identify and support industries that are well-positioned for growth. ... Colorado's share of that impact is $10.2 billion annually, with 91,285 jobs, and the state is now widely recognized as a national leader in the rapidly growing green economy.

Sure it's positioned for growth: that's what happens when politicians subsidize an industry while strangling the competitors. But if "green" energy were truly good for the economy, it would succeed on a free market. Only then would the resulting jobs and revenues signal net economic gains.

Wage Controls

Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/04/carroll-mischief-with-wages/) describes some of the problems with Colorado's perpetually increasing wage floor. Because the measure was poorly written, it will hammer restaurants harder every year. Carroll is far to kind to the measure, though. Waiting tables is for many an entry-level job requiring no special skills. How many kids pay for college that way? Everyone who voted for the measure voted to throw some of those workers out of a job. There's nothing understandable or excusable about that. Wage controls hurt entry level workers. Wage controls are immoral, and they should be repealed.

Legislature: Cells, Roads

The legislature is (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11621301) considering "banning drivers from talking on cellphones without a hands-free device." Never mind the (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/14/carroll-cell-claims-ring-false/) fact that driving while using a hands-free device is just as dangerous. This is about tears, damn it, not logic. Obviously we also need a bill to ban talking to other passengers while driving, eating and drinking while driving, daydreaming while driving...

I'm a little confused as to why Republicans are (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11621300) pushing higher car fees. What happened to the gasoline tax?

Spending Restraints, Shmending Restraints

The Denver Post is positively (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11620208) giddy about the prospects of wiping out Colorado's restraints on political spending. If the Post gets its way, Colorado citizens will pay increasingly more in taxes into the future.

Transparency

Face the State has out an (http://facethestate.com/articles/13818-transparency-stuff-spin-2009) article on "transparency," the move to put all records of political spending online. The Gazette has (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/districts_47226___article.html/amendment_school.html) editorialized in favor of transparency. I fully endorse the move. The costs are trivial relative to the benefit of permitting citizens who pay for the whole mess to look at where their money is going.

Voters should regard this issue as the standard by which they decide whether Democrats stay in power. What's more Democratic than giving information to the people? If Democrats fail to pass full transparency, for every branch and level of government, we'll know that they care more about special interests than about the people. It's our money, and we deserve to see how it's spent. The only reason to keep that information from the public is if there's something to hide.

Comment by Anonymous: Ari: oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear currently receive many billions in subsidies, and have been doing so for decades. The marketplace needs a level playing field.

Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet: $4.61 Per Day

February 4, 2009

Today is the first day of my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet," and this morning I purchased groceries for the entire week. The total cost was $32.29, or $4.61 per day. Following is the media release, then documentation of my shopping trips.

[February 6 Update: I purchased another 78 cents worth of bananas, bringing my daily total up to $4.72. (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-472-per-day.html) Read the details.]

MEDIA RELEASE: February 4, 2009

LOW-CARB FOOD STAMP DIET COSTS $4.61 PER DAY
Diet Proves Great Nutrition Possible on Small Budget

Today Ari Armstrong purchased a week's worth of highly nutritious groceries for $32.29, or $4.61 per day. That's 19 percent less than the $5.68 that food stamps allow for a single individual—see http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm.

Armstrong will eat his "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet" from February 4-10, and he will document his receipts, purchases, and meals online—see http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html.

"My grocery purchases today explode the myth that food-stamp recipients can only afford unhealthy foods," Armstrong said.

A recent CNN report—see https://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/02/02/food.stamps.economy/index.html—quotes several individuals who falsely claim a low budget means a bad diet.

Armstrong purchased meat, dairy, eggs, olive oil, vegetables, fruit, walnuts, chocolate, tea, and spices. He did not purchase any products with grains, vegetable oils, hydrogenated fat, potatoes, or processed sugar. The diet roughly follows the advice of such writers as Gary Taubes and is similar to "paleo" or "cave-man" diets.

Receipts and Photos

Narrative

The key to eating well on a budget is simply to eat what's on sale.

A week's budget isn't a true test of this, as true budget shopping looks ahead several weeks. For example, a couple months ago I bought a dozen or so assorted squash for 49 cents per pound. Some of this squash is now in my freezer, pureed, awaiting its place in some dish or other, ala (http://www.amazon.com/Deceptively-Delicious-Simple-Secrets-Eating/dp/0061251348) Jessica Seinfeld. Squash hold up very well over time, so I still have three spaghetti squash awaiting the oven. To take another example, last week King Soopers sold strawberries for a dollar per pound, so I bough extra and froze some.

Today I shopped at three grocery stores, Sprouts, Target, and King Soopers. I chose Sprouts by reading store ads online; that store is having particularly good vegetable sales this week. (Last week King Soopers had a sale for red-leaf lettuce, but that didn't help me today; grocery sales run from Wednesday through Tuesday.)

I had never been into Sprouts before, and I like it. It has on open, light feel, and it has some great prices. The speculate, I think the business model is something like, "Lure in the yuppies with loss-leaders and a hip environment, then the yuppies will spend all the money they saved on higher-priced specialty goods." This is great for people shopping on a budget. As the photos illustrate, I cleaned up on produce for a mere $6.80. I got a large eggplant for 50 cents. Cabbage, tomatoes, and onions for 33 cents per pound. Grapefruit three for a dollar—each weighs over a pound. Red-leaf lettuce for 69 cents each; I bought two head. And I got some Walnuts to give me some Omega 3. (Normally I take fish oil for the DHA Omega 3, but I'll skip those for the week. I buy a large, inexpensive bottle of capsules at Costco, so they can definitely be part of a low-budget diet.) I'll definitely be going back to Sprouts.

Next up was Target. The produce at Target sucks. The quality isn't too bad, but the quality-cost combo isn't great. But the store has great deals on things like chocolate, tomato sauce (which I skipped this week), and, as you can see, turkey. Milk costs the same at Target and King Soopers, so I grabbed a gallon at Target. I was surprised to find that Newman's olive oil was the least expensive of any I saw.

Finally I swung by King Soopers, a.k.a. the Store of Markdowns. I left a $2 gallon of milk sitting in the cooler; the short dates of dairy mark-downs don't allow for a week's keep. I did buy a bunch of marked-down bananas for 35 cents per pound. I plan to eat these for desert with chocolate sauce and cream—yum. As you can tell, I got hundreds of times as much salt as I need for the week, as, believe it or not, that was the cheapest way I found to buy it. Tea wasn't on my list, but I knew I was under budget, so I splurged and spent 89 cents on a box of 16 bags. Two cloves of garlic—49 cents. A cup of cream. Pepper. And that completed my week's purchases.

The two most expensive purchases on my list were the turkey, at $7.77 for an 11.26 pound bird, and the olive oil, at $4.48.

Oh, the final picture is my breakfast: two eggs and a diced tomato scrambled in olive oil, a cup of milk, and a mug of black tea.

The main thing I learned from my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/10/7news.html) 2007 diet was the importance of fat. At the time, I was eating from a "fat is bad" mentality. Now I understand that good fat is a cornerstone of a healthy diet. Of course there's a big difference between monounsaturated fats and Omega 3 oils versus "partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil." My usual diet includes butter and coconut oil in addition to olive oil, but I couldn't get all three for a single week.

Recently I read in a book about thrift—I forget the title—claiming that you should never buy off-list at a grocery store. That's terrible advice for saving money. All the time I find fantastic sales that I wasn't expecting. To take another example, recently I purchased around 20 peppers for 20 cents each. I ate some and pureed and froze the rest to add to dishes. I would have been nuts to skip the peppers just because they weren't on my list.

So, to summarize my advice:

1. Buy real food, not processed junk. That means you're really only shopping about 20 percent of the typical grocery store.

2. Buy food at the lowest prices you can find.

3. When you come across great deals, buy as much as you can reasonably eat or fit in your freezer.

This is pretty much common sense. So nobody better tell me the only thing they can afford is junk macaroni and cheese with hydrogenated fat. As I've said before, what is lacking is not access to good, modestly priced food, but the will to eat it.

Comment by Anonymous: I'm really enjoying this. Perhaps the real lesson is basically that people have forgotten how to eat. One wouldn't have to do this for long before starting to come up with a week's recipe ideas in the store after only a quick review of the sale items.

Comment by Anonymous: Armstrong has obviously been eating well and is in good or better physical condition and virtually not overweight. If he was like the typical American (overweight, out of shape, a regular consumer of fats and carbohydrates), he would never survive on the diet he has chosen. He would be feeling always hungry and drinking water like its going out of style to placate the onerous and persistent stomach pangs and aches he would be having.

Comment by Ari: Perhaps Anonymous would care to check what I'm actually eating. There is plenty of fat in the diet. Whole milk, cream, eggs, olive oil, turkey, chocolate... Taubes contends that it is actually a high-carb diet that exacerbates hunger pangs, whereas a lower-carb, higher (healthy) fat diet diet satiates hunger much better. In my normal diet, I do not completely cut out processed carbs, but I do limit them. Plus, the diet I've chosen does contain carbs; for example, a banana has 27 grams of carbs, according to NutritionData.com. And a cup of whole milk contains 13 grams of carbs.

Comment by Ari: I'll add the obvious point: a diet with more carbs is potentially much cheaper. I know of no less expensive foods that flour and rice. If I were seriously hurting for money, I'd make flour tortillas and add rice to most dishes. A person can eat some grains without going overboard and without buying expensive packaged food.

Comment by LB: This is a truly interesting exercise. Thanks for sharing the particulars with us.

Comment by Dave Barnes: What about wine? Wine is good for you and you should be drinking 0.5 bottles per day.

Comment by Ari: I'm not sure half a bottle of wine per day is necessary. Usually I do drink wine—I've taken to Black Box, which I actually prefer to various less-expensive bottles—but it's not in the budget this week.

Comment by Kvatch: Diet Proves Great Nutrition Possible on Small Budget... ... if you own a car? I assume that you did drive right? You didn't take a bus or walk. I'm solidly middle-class, but I live in San Francisco without a car. So a trip to the three closest "real" grocery stores, getting what you did, would take me about 6 hours. Diet Proves Great Nutrition Possible on Small Budget... ... Assuming you have Internet access and can find out absolutely all the lowest prices in your area. Here in SF, even the cheapest Internet access costs about $35/month. But I suppose you could use the connections at the Public Library--add another two hours to that trip...on the bus, and then there's the problem of printing the necessary coupons... Diet Proves Great Nutrition Possible on Small Budget... Assuming you don't live in an inner-city, one that doesn't have anything other than 'corner markets' (liquor, cigarettes, sparingly few eggs, onions, and grapefruit) and don't have limited mobility. Though I walk to the closest "real" grocery store ('bout a mile away), a lot of people in the SF's Tenderloin ('bout 3 blocks South of here) don't have that option. All I'm really trying to point out is that the situation is not as clear as your description makes it out to be, and a fair test of whether or not somebody can get by on ~ $6.00/day isn't going to be determined by a Colorado shopping trip. I wish I had time to comparison shop the items you purchased at our local Whole Foods and Ralphs (my guess...double), but that will have to wait. Target...out of the question. The nearest one is 20 miles away. (BTW: How much did the gas, insurance, and car-payment amount to?)

Comment by Ari: I knew going into this that, no matter what conditions and restrictions I placed on the diet, some would complain about them, despite the fact that my self-imposed conditions are much more severe in many respects than are real conditions for people on a very-limited budget. The main point that Kvatch misses is that, as I've explained, buying all my groceries within a single week, to be eaten entirely within that week, imposes an artificial constraint that requires special planning. Usually I'm always looking for deals at the local store. But, within a week's period, any given store will run sales only for particular items. Thus, it's much easier to buy food on sale when you're shopping several weeks out. By the way, the grocery stores also mail their ads to everybody in the neighborhood, so internet access is not necessary. In fact I do purchase many of my groceries by walking to the local grocery store. If I had to purchase all of my groceries that way, my food budget would go up only very slightly, because I would simply take better advantage of the deals at the local store.

Comment by Walter: Here in the Denver area the grocery stores send out their sale flyers every week in the mail, as well as publish them in the Wednesday newspapers. No internet access is required. Also, the cheapest grocery stores are the ethnic markets, usually located in the poorer neighborhoods. That's something I should document on my site sometime soon.

Comment by Anonymous: Ari, You have a car. You are in good health and can schlep to all these different stores. You don't live in an area that is bereft of grocery stores. You are not home bound and dependent upon others to do your shopping for you. And you do know something about nutrition. I think Kvatch is describing a much more realistic situation in most cities.

Comment by Anonymous: For years I shopped the way you describe, and it does work. I also did low-carb diets and was always able to afford it one way or another--shopping the sales, buying large quantities when it was especially cheap, grabbing bargains that weren't on my list, etc. Then my husband lost his job and for the past year and a half we've been scraping by on two partial incomes (when we can get work). It's impossible to "shop smart" when there just isn't any money. Turkey, for example, may be cheap at 59 cents a pound, but when you don't have even $5.90 plus tax for a 10-lb turkey during the week the sale is on (that's quite a small one--we're not even talking about the 25-lb. ones here) then you can't grab it, no matter how cheap it is. Eggs may be cheap when they're $1 a dozen, but we had weeks last year when we didn't shop for groceries at all because we had to save money for gas so we could do the absolutely necessary driving (looking for work, etc.) There were weeks when we didn't have fresh fruits or vegetables and not much meat. What did we live on? Beans, rice, flour, and pasta products we'd stocked up on months earlier when THEY were on sale, all of which keep well on the shelf. It's true that many low-income people are also low-education people and honestly don't know how to shop cheap or cook from scratch, but some of us are pinching every penny as tight as we possibly can and we still aren't getting enough protein and fresh produce. You have to have the money when the sales are on, even for cheap groceries.

Comment by Ari: I am amazed at how few commenters seem to have actually read the relevant material prior to responding. I did not propose the low-carb diet as the model for an emergency budget. As noted, if I were truly on an emergency budget, I too would eat inexpensive beans, rice, and flour. (I would also garden.) As for the previous comment that I have a car and am not home bound, I buy many of my groceries from the local store, and I usually walk. If I had no car, I could buy all my groceries there or occasionally take the bus elsewhere. As noted, over a longer period of time you can find more deals at a given store. True, if I were unable to move, I would not be able to do much bargain shopping. But that describes barely anyone taking food stamps, so it's irrelevant. Again, some people will never be happy with a model diet, no matter what the conditions, because they are already committed to the politics of forced redistribution.

Comment by Anonymous: I think that if welfare would have classes on how to shop for and prepare healthy foods more people would shop healthier. I myself love eating healthy but have no clue how to prepare or shop with a menu list for a week or month at a time within the stamps budget. I think the cost of government food stamps could decline a lot if there was education involved. Not all people on food stamps have access to internet or cooking channel. Educate people

Jesus On the Dole

February 5, 2009

Apparently God needs more welfare. Via (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/index.shtml) Diana Hsieh:

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rel_obama_faith_based_11) Declaring that "there is a force for good greater than government," President Barack Obama on Thursday established a White House office of faith-based initiatives with a broader mission than the one overseen by his Republican predecessor.

The article discusses the problem of tax-funded religious groups hiring on religious grounds. But that is merely a peripheral problem. The gigantic problem is simply the forcible transfer of funds to faith-based groups. Any such program inherently violates the rights of conscience and property of those who do not wish to finance such organizations.

Obviously the other major problem is that the expanded program will bring religious organizations more under the power and influence of federal politicians. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The bipartisan faith-based initiatives threaten to undermine the separation of church and state that has significantly contributed to the relative liberty of the West.

Everyone who cares about religious liberty, believers and nonbelievers alike, must criticize Obama's effort at every opportunity. Faith-based welfare should not be expanded, it should not be reformed, it should be completely eliminated, in the name of liberty.

Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet: Disclaimer

February 5, 2009

I need to finish up a project today, so I won't write extensively about my "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet" until tomorrow.

For now, I want to offer a disclaimer: While I recommend that people buy healthy food at modest prices if they're on a tight budget, I am not advising readers on what foods they should eat or in what quantities. I am not a doctor or a dietician. I urge readers who are considering dietary changes to consult a recognized expert, as some dietary changes may result in negative health consequences.

I also need to clear up a possible misconception, based on a comment I got (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-461-per-day.html) yesterday. I am not offering my diet as a model food stamp or low-budget diet. Rather, the purpose of my week's diet is to refute the claim that a low-budget diet implies a diet high in carbohydrates, starches, and hydrogenated fats. I do think a diet should eliminate hydrogenated fat and even vegetable oils, but I don't have a problem with modest carb and starch consumption. My usual diet includes whole grains, occasional potatoes, some sugary fruits, and limited cane sugar. I'll have more to say about this tomorrow.

I am considering buying three more bananas for the week to pad my carbs. I still have 89 cents left on my self-imposed budget. So my daily total may increase a bit by week's end.

Comment by Dagny Taggart: Ari, I think this is a great idea, and I look forward to seeing you blog about it! Keep up the good work :)

Comment by Dave Barnes: So, olive oil is vegetable oil or a fruit oil?

Comment by Ari: Wiki claims the olive is a fruit, as is the coconut. (I usually eat coconut oil, too.) One argument I've heard against processed vegetable oils is that have too high a ratio of Omega 6, but I haven't looked deeply into the debate over such oils.

'Attack on People of Faith'

February 6, 2009

Senator Jim DeMint (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489264,00.html) told Neil Cavuto:

Well, this morning, I went to the National Prayer Breakfast.

Barack Obama spoke about the importance of faith. Tony Blair spoke about the importance of faith. It was a great experience, over 3,000 people from all over the world.

Then, I get back here, and we're working on this so-called stimulus bill that would prohibit any religious activity in any college or university facility that uses any of these funds for modernization or renovation.

It is just a phrase that I think the ACLU had stuck in this bill, because they are the real proponents of keeping it in there, that would really take advantage of religious freedom, Bible studies, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whether it is on a student center, a dorm, an auditorium where prayer might be offered.

But this is hardly a fundamental problem with the alleged stimulus package. The root problem is that it massively violates rights through billions of dollars of forced wealth transfers. Yes, it violates the rights of the religious to force them to fund activities that exclude religion. But it also violates the rights of others to force them to fund religious ideas and activities.

To his credit, DeMint (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090130/NEWS03/301300002) opposes the "stimulus plan" in general, not just for religious reasons.

Around Colorado 2/6/09

February 6, 2009

Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet

Face the State published a short (http://facethestate.com/buzz/13928-ari-armstrong-cant-get-enough-his-food-stamp-diet) article about my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet. Diana Hsieh also (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/02/healthy-diet-on-food-stamps-you-bet.shtml) mentioned it on her blog, as (http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2009/02/what-can-you-buy-on-food-stamps.html) did Monica on her FA/RM blog. Walter in Denver also (http://www.walterindenver.com/archives/001502.html) discusses the diet, writing, "My monthly grocery bill is often less than a food stamp allotment. I'm careful with my grocery shopping but not particularly miserly."

Socialized Medicine—Again

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/05/dems-bill-shoots-universal-health-care-colorado/) "A plan to lay the groundwork for a Canadian-style, single-payer universal health care system in Colorado has been introduced by a group of Democrats. House Bill 1273, sponsored by Rep. John Kefalas, of Fort Collins, and co-sponsored by 18 legislators, would create a privately funded commission to study how a government-funded health care system could work. The goal is to send a single-payer bill to the General Assembly in 2011, he said."

Here we go (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/07/208unfair.html) again...

Unemployment Welfare

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/05/staying-afloat-during-hard-economic-times/) "Colorado's unemployment system... is simply under siege. This year, it is expected to face a record number of claims and to pay out a record $500 million to $600 million in benefits. ... Reforms instituted a generation ago appear poised to keep the system solvent... Even so, what Colorado is facing is staggering when compared with recent years."

Meanwhile, John Lott (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487425,00.html) points out that paying people not to work encourages some people not to work—surprise, surprise.

Of course, those forced to pay into the system may rightly take money back from the system as a simple matter of justice and restitution.

However, people should not be forced to finance any unemployment system. Instead, they should be left free to prepare for hard times as they see fit. If taxes were lower, people could save money for a rainy day. Notably, in addition to restoring individual responsibility, this would also make more funds available for economic growth.

Protectionism

Interestingly, during the Great Depression, Republicans were the ones trashing the economy with protectionist tariffs. Today's Democrats, apparently keen on combining the worst aspects of both parties, also promote protectionism.

Vincent Carroll (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/06/carroll-reckless-senators/l) writes about "Colorado's two new Democratic senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet. Given a chance Wednesday to strip the Senate stimulus package of a highly provocative 'Buy America' provision, Udall and Bennet joined 63 of their colleagues in saying no."

'Stimulating the Welfare State'

Mike Rosen writes a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/06/rosen-stimulating-the-welfare-state/) nice critique of the stimulus package, pointing out that it's largely about expanding the welfare state.

Meanwhile, Democratic governors are (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11643763) busy begging for their share of the loot.

In a (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2009/02/06/obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/) blog post, David Harsanyi quotes a Washington Times article: "CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing." That's because any "short term help" would be entirely artificial, not anything that contributes to true prosperity.

Harsanyi also (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11638925) points out that "in Obama's trillion-dollar 'stimulus plan' rushing through Congress, nearly every sector of the economy will, at one point, have allegedly benefited from taxpayer bounty. Does this mean that all industries can be subjected to similar central control?" The Denver Post openly (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11638922) endorses political control of industry.

The so-called "stimulus" plan would in fact harm the economy into the indefinite future. It should be rejected, shred, torched, and buried.

Just Desserts

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11638923) claims that colleges "deserve" gambling taxes. No, they don't. They deserve to accept money only from voluntary contributers, whether students or donors. And casinos deserve to operate without being forced to finance welfare programs on a free and open market.

Legislature at Work

When the legislature is at work, you can rest assured that it's trying to make other people's work harder. For instance, the legislature is trying to (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11645095) further violate the right of free association by forcing employers to give employees leave for school events. Many employers already do so, and those who don't typically have good reasons not to. The only result of the bill will be to marginally increase the cost of labor for some businesses, thereby marginally contributing to unemployment. Our economy suffers from a million such tiny cuts.

Meanwhile, (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11644386) "Speaker Terrance Carroll, a Denver Democrat, issued a memo Friday demanding 'all lobbyists, governor's staff, executive staff, visitors, Capitol staff and press' show some respect by use representatives' proper titles."

Their proper titles? That could be an interesting exercise...

Udall Squishes

February 6, 2009

Previously I have been impressed with Mark Udall, now Senator for Colorado. As Congressman, he (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/letter-to-mark-udall-regarding-bailout.html) voted against the earlier bailout. Now that the Democrats are in charge, he's all for the new bailout. Apparently he's more interested in playing the role of Partisan Puke than in defending the rights of his Colorado constituents.

Notice the difference between Udall's (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) sincere, informative letter on church and state, the single best letter I've ever received from any politician, and the senseless, pandering, gobbledegook he sent me today:

Friday, February 06, 2009
Dear Armstrong, Ari,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the economic recovery bill being debated in the United States Senate. I appreciate your taking the time to write and expressing your specific concerns about this important legislation. Several thousand Coloradans have contacted me to share their views.

With the worst economic crisis facing our nation since the Great Depression, it is important that we do all we can to give a boost to our economy. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the national unemployment rate has increased to over 7%, a problem that is adversely affecting many Colorado families. Along with rising unemployment, many Coloradans are struggling to stay in their homes as a direct result of the hardships they have faced because of the current economic crisis.

I believe that we must act to keep Coloradans working, but we must be thorough and get every assurance we can from the best minds, best historians, and best economists to ensure that this legislation will provide the necessary boost to our economy. This package must be transparent and restore accountability to the expenditure of federal monies. Importantly, I want to make sure that the bill is heavily weighted towards creating jobs to stimulate the economy as soon as possible. We have a talented workforce in Colorado and I believe that with the right federal policies, we will be able to keep Coloradans at work and keep them in their homes.

During debate of the economic recovery bill thus far, I have partnered with senators from both parties to improve the bill so that the federal government will spend taxpayer dollars effectively. Moreover, I have filed several amendments that would help re-direct federal monies into job-creating projects that would help put Colorado back on the right economic path. As the bill is being considered you can be sure that my staff and I will keep your suggestions and concerns in mind.

Thanks again for contacting me. My job is not merely about supporting or opposing legislation. It is also about bridging ideological divides and bringing people together to solve problems. I welcome your letters and e-mails and always listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing our state and nation.

Warm Regards,
Mark Udall
United States Senator, Colorado

Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet: $4.72 Per Day

February 6, 2009

The big news is that I decided to buy some more bananas, so I added 78 cents to my weekly total, bringing me to $33.07 for the week, or $4.72 per day, or 17 percent less than the $5.68 that food stamps allow for a single individual. (See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) collected links.)

I had been 89 cents under budget, so I figured I might as well pick up some more sugary fruit for desserts. Again, the point of this diet was not to minimize expenses, but to eat the best, low-carb diet I could within the self-imposed budget.

Following are some general notes, in no particular order, followed by new photos and descriptions of the diet.

Double Ad Day

I didn't realize until after I went on my main shopping spree that both (http://sprouts.com/home.php) Sprouts and (http://sfmarkets.com/) Suflower have "double ad day" on Wednesday. That means that the ads for two weeks' sales are honored. My wife told me about this. (I had actually benefitted from the policy without realizing it.) So, if you live near one of those stores, Wednesday is definitely the day to go.

Taxes

I can think of nothing more stupid than charging poor people taxes on their basic groceries. (Okay, taxing poor people (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html) 15.3 percent of their income through payroll taxes is more stupid.) Combined, I payed $1.34 in sales taxes on my food purchases, or 4 percent of my weekly budget. That may not seem like much, but it could have added (for example) more than a half-pound of bananas to my diet per day. Or a loaf of bread, if my diet had allowed it. (I'm grain free for the week.) Or two to four pounds of vegetables.

Stress

In retrospect, I have a much better appreciation of the elevated stress levels during my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/10/7news.html) 2007 diet, during which my wife and I each ate for $2.57 per day for a month. This time, the diet contributed more hours of work to my already-busy schedule, gave me a lot more details to contemplate, and subjected my every bite to public review. As a result, I didn't sleep very well Tuesday or Wednesday nights (though I started to catch up last night).

It occurred to me that this begins to simulate the stress that comes with a real low-budget diet, such as if one gets laid off and has nothing in savings. Obviously I realize those stress levels can be much higher and longer lasting. Stress interferes with sound sleep, suppresses appetite, and interferes with digestion. Thus, stress over food can actually make eating more of a problem.

Usually I don't calculate my food spending or monitor my eating habits; I just buy good food on sale and eat it. On Tuesday, suddenly worried about my week's calorie load, I spent some time estimating my daily calories, which are fine. Real money problems require more planning, again contributing to stress.

So those who suddenly find themselves in a financial bind will probably experience more stress, and it's important to think about how to deal with it. I'm notoriously bad at dealing with stress, yet I've found a number of things that seem to work reasonably well: yoga stretching, breath control, exercise, sunshine, sex, massage (my wife and I purchased a used table so we can work on each other easier), and good novels and movies. (We watched Secret Life of Bees last night, which I quite enjoyed.)

Carbohydrates

In my last diet, I learned a lot about fat, as initially that's what I cut too much. For this diet, I'm learning more about carbs, which I have intentionally limited. (Again, I'm not offering dietary advice here; please read my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-disclaimer.html) disclaimer.)

I am not trying offer a model food-stamp diet here. With the 2007 diet, I was intentionally trying to get expenses as low as I could and still maintain a basically healthy diet. This week, my goal is to eat a nutritious, minimally processed, low-carb diet within a set budget. If I were actually on an emergency food budget, I'd combine the two diets, mixing healthy fats, protein, and produce with reasonable amounts of inexpensive, high-carb foods such as rice and flour. I think that would offer the best balance of cost and nutrition.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo_diet) suggests that a "paleo" diet could contain as many as 200 grams of carbs per day. I'm between 100 and 200 per day this week. So I could actually boost my carb load and still be "low-carb" by this standard. (That's one reason I bought more bananas.)

The USDA (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/08/challengea.html) recommends 300 grams of carbs per day. Hard-core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet) low-carb diets recommend 20 to 60 grams of carbs per day. Frankly, I'm skeptical of arguments for either extreme. The USDA's recommendations have helped create a nation of fat, diabetic people with heart problems. On the other hand, 20 carbs per day seems quite low. Among my concerns is that modern man has more body mass and a bigger brain than our paleo ancestors; might not this require more carbs? I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the matter, but as an initial stance it strikes me that in this case moderation may be the best policy. My guess is that my normal carb load over the last few months has been somewhere in the range of 200 per day, and I don't plan to change my regular diet.

There's obviously a huge difference between whole-grain bread or cereal and potato chips or soda. Not all carbs are created equal. Following is a list of common carb-loaded foods, with their carb loads:

(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1846/2) Banana, Medium: 27 grams
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2) Apple, Medium: 25 grams
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/breakfast-cereals/1598/2) Oatmeal, 1 Cup Cooked: 32 grams
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/baked-products/4868/2) Bread, Slice: 12 grams (half the weight of the bread)
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5707/2) Rice, Brown, 1 Cooked Cup: 45 grams
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1973/2) Orange Juice, 1 Cup: 25 grams
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beverages/9234/2) Soda, 12 Ounce: 29 grams
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fast-foods-generic/8054/2) McDonald's French Fries, Medium: 46 grams
(http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/baked-products/4892/2) Cake, Chocolate, Slice: 35 grams

Obviously, sugary fruits and whole grains have a lot better general nutritional value than soda and such.

It's not hard to see how somebody could easily rocket past 300 carbs in a day with a diet heavy in grains and sugar. (Sugar cane is (http://www.articleclick.com/popular-crops-of-the-world.html) actually the world's number one crop.) But it's also not hard to see how somebody could keep carbs down to a reasonable level without much difficulty. You can still eat six or seven modest portions of carb-loaded food and still come in considerably below USDA guidelines.

Diet Updates

Here's the receipt for the bananas:

On Wednesday, I didn't have any meat till the evening, when I could roast the turkey. Thus, I ate vegetables and olive oil throughout the day.

I cooked the eggplant with onion and garlic according to (http://www.finecooking.com/articles/how-to/cook-eggplant-to-perfection.aspx) directions I found through a search.

By evening I was fully carnivorous again. I started with a frozen turkey and cooked it according to (http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents2005/turkey-cook-frozen.pdf) these directions. Having cooked a turkey thawed and frozen, I definitely prefer starting with a frozen bird.

The turkey meat filled a 9 by 13 inch glass dish.

Then I boiled the remaining pieces for a couple hours to make stock.

Breakfast for Thursday was light.

I had an earl lunch, therefore, of soup made with the stock, turkey, cabbage, an onion, and garlic.

I had over a gallon of soup left for the rest of the week.

I also ate more of the eggplant dish on Thursday with another cup of milk. For dessert, a sliced banana with chocolate sauce and cream. Normally, I'll add a few blueberries or strawberries to the mix. The chocolate sauce is just chocolate powder and water, cooked on the stovetop for a spell. You can also add sugar if you like.

Here are the new bananas:

Thursday night I had a deluxe salad with tomato, turkey, walnuts, and olive oil.

This morning (Friday) I had a larger breakfast of eggs and tomato, half a grapefruit, and milk.

Also today I finished the eggplant dish with turkey, drank another cup of milk, ate a couple bananas, and had a cup of tea. I'm getting ready to eat another big salad with turkey.

I probably won't take any more photos for the week, as they'd just be duplicates. Part of the constraint of the diet is that I have to buy and eat all my groceries within a seven-day period, resulting in less diversity. Normally a shopper can look ahead several weeks, buy things on sale, put certain foods in the freezer, and eat a more varied diet. I will, however, track my daily meals. I can basically coast through Tuesday with minimal effort.

Comment by Ari: Some anonymous poster sent in the snarky comment, "Now try to do it like a real poor person would, without a car or internet access." But I've already addressed that line of argument in (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-461-per-day.html) previous comments. Even if I did the diet with no internet access and no car, which would be no great trick, such critics would continue to come up with reasons to complain. Besides, I wonder what fraction of people on food stamps own car or share a family car? My guess is that, discounting dense areas where even the wealthy often forego a personal vehicle, the fraction is quite high.

Comment by Diana Hsieh: Ari—The evidence from studies of the eating habits and diseases of primitive cultures seems to indicate that a wide variety of macronutriet compositions is consistent with good health. The traditional Inuit diet consists of no plant matter whatsoever, unless they are starving. In contrast, the Kitavans eat about 70% of their calories from carbohydrates—in the form of starchy tubers, not sugars and grains. When eating their traditional diets, these peoples do not suffer from diabetes, heart disease, or other "diseases of civilization." (They do suffer from other problems, like infection and trauma, of course.) However, they develop diabetes, heart disease, et al very quickly when flour, sugar, modern vegetable oils, and other processed foods replace their traditional foods. See Stephan's posts on these groups for the details: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/Kitava http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/Inuit So, from what I've read, the problem is not carbohydrates per se, but rather the form thereof. It matters whether you're eating french fries (i.e. potatoes fried in rancid vegetable oil) or mashed sweet potatoes made with real butter and cream. Most of the carbohydrates (and fats) that Americans eat today are unhealthy, but better carbs and fats can be had—although that does require some effort. However, if a person is trying to lose weight, restricting carbohydrates can be the easiest way. I tried for four years to lose about fifteen pounds by the standard dietary guidelines: low fat, reduced calorie, lots of cardio. Instead, I gained even more weight—and I was miserable. Since I've gone on a high-fat, low-carb paleo-ish diet of unprocessed, traditional foods, I've lost 17 pounds in about 8 months without ever feeling deprived. And I feel better than ever. Oh, and I should mention that when I was in college, I was on a very limited budget, and I had no car. Sometimes, I was able to borrow one, but most of the time I used public transportation to shop. It was a pain, but definitely doable.

Comment by Ari: Incidentally, my wife and went without a car for about a year and a half in 2003-04. We walked, biked, or bussed just about everywhere (though we did borrow a car a few times).

Comment by Anonymous: The lower carb levels of some of the published diets are usually aimed at metabolically challenged people. If you are 100 lbs over weight or diabetic, etc. the lower levels could be very helpful. Healthy people only a few lbs overweight may do quite well by cutting back on whites a little.

Comment by Jennifer Snow: The snarky comment is silly. Some years ago shortly after I dropped out of college (less than 10 years ago, mind you), I was living in an inner-city area with no car. I walked to the local Kroger (King Soopers to you Colorado folks) less than 2 miles away on a daily basis with no problems and managed to eat a semi-reasonable amount of food for just about $1 a day. Granted, I was losing weight, but I'm significantly *overweight* so this wasn't a problem, and I wasn't noticeably hungry most of the time.

Comment by Cindi: Your diet that you describe in your daily logs is NOT a low carb diet. Sugar, dairy, flour products, and most fruits are not allowed until maintenance. You are misleading people, and I would recommend you do more research regarding low-carb diets.

Comment by Ari: Cindi, as I've written, there are varying definitions of "low-carb" diets. My carb load was roughly half or less of the USDA guidelines, so if that's not low enough for you, tough luck. You yourself state that "maintenance" low-carb diets can include the things I ate. Contrary to your suggestion, I did not eat any sugar or flour products for the week's diet, though I did eat dairy and fruit. Perhaps in the future you would care to read what I've actually written before claiming that I'm "misleading people." -Ari

'Personhood,' Again

February 8, 2009

The "Voice of the Catholic Lay Faithful" (http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_14986.php) announces:

Febraury 6, 2009—Washington, DC—The Personhood movement is catching fire as Maryland joins 15 other states across the country working toward the legal recognition of all human beings as "persons" under the law.

Delegate Don H. Dwyer, Jr. will introduce a Personhood Amendment this coming week in the Maryland General Assembly. The amendment recognizes all human beings from their biological beginning as "persons." ...

"Here we are some 36 years after Roe v. Wade, (the Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion), and we now have 3-D and 4-D color sonograms that give us a real-time look into the womb," Del. Dwyer said. "There is no doubt today that there is a human being in the womb and that human being should be considered a person."

Whether or not Dwyer "doubts" that a fertilized egg is a person, it is not, in fact, for the reasons that Diana Hsieh and I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) explain. (Diana pointed me to the link.) Lack of doubt about something does not imply it is true. Certainty results from overwhelming evidence proving something in the total context of knowledge. Lack of doubt, in this case and many others, implies only an unwillingness to seriously question. There is only one way one can reach the conclusion that a fertilized egg is a person, and that is through religious faith.

The cited release makes the same mistake that all proponents of such measures have made: to leap from "human being" in the sense of being alive with human DNA to "person." No such logical leap is warranted; it is an equivocation. But the advocates of such measures have no need for facts or reason; they have faith.

Around Colorado: 2/8/09

February 8, 2009

Hillman on TABOR

Mark Hillman (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11647279) writes, "In Colorado's current budget crunch, leading Democratic lawmakers wouldn't dream of admitting that they should have socked away a little money when the economy was growing or that they should have been more conservative in adopting this year's budget. Now, it's time to blame the state constitution—namely, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights."

This may become a huge fight over the next year or two. Again.

Corporate Welfare

Sean Paige (http://www.locallibertyonline.org/paige_blog.php?blogid=1400) points out something that should be obvious: corporate welfare is inherently politicized.

Tax Obscenity

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/08/why-make-tax-code-yet-more-complex/) "The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated the cost of tax-code compliance last year at $300 billion. Meanwhile, the IRS reports individuals and businesses spend roughly 7.6 billion hours a year tracking receipts, accounting for expenses and performing all the other exercises that are necessary to file accurate tax returns."

Such figures may not seem so high given the recent spate of profligate federal spending, but it still amounts to around a thousand dollars for every person. The cost may be somewhat inflated because, absent an income tax, people might still do much of the same tracking for other reasons, but still. Our political leaders seem hell-bent on driving our economy into the ground.

'Stimulus' Summary

Charles Krauthammer succinctly (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/08/krauthammer-obama-dream-ends-quickly/) summarizes the so-called "stimulus" package: "[S]o much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple."

Kopel Versus Amateur Media

Dave Kopel (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/07/kopel-dying-newspapers-vanishing-coverage/) points out that professional journalists tend to write better stories than amateurs. Hardly a surprise. But his example doesn't do justice to his case: he discusses coverage of a hockey game. Nobody will care who won a hockey game five or fifty years from now. I don't care if all sports and entertainment "news" is written by amateurs.

But real news is very difficult to gather. Covering the state legislature, for example, is a full-time job, and a difficult one to do right. Of course, ambitious amateurs can and do produce good material, but they are necessarily limited by time constraints. The huge problem is that paid journalists often produce amateurish content.

Take, for instance, an (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/07/energy-bills-need-people-power-say-supporters/) article by Bernie Morson for the Rocky Mountain News. It is essentially cheer-leading for environmentalist causes.

Morson writes, "At the legislature, HB 1126 by Rep. Dickie Lee Hullinghorst, D-Boulder, and HB 1149 by Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, encourage solar energy." "Encourages?" As in, the bills state, "Resolved: The legislature would really like to encourage people to think about using solar energy"? I somehow doubt it.

Maybe if newspapers produced professional content more often, more people would read them.

Happy Birthday, Darwin

February 9, 2009

Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809. He became one of the world's greatest scientists, and certainly its greatest biologist. His birth date deserves our recognition.

However, I'm a bit leery about an (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11664118) advertising campaign by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It's funding a Colorado sign stating, "Praise Darwin; Evolve Beyond Belief." Darwin certainly does merit our praise. However, his central significance is not the stir he's caused among the religious; it is his contributions to science. And the advice, "evolve beyond belief," doesn't mean anything. A belief can be true or false. The only way to evolve beyond belief is to quit thinking. The proper goal is to reach true beliefs and shed false ones.

Thankfully, there are much better ways to celebrate Darwin's birth date, such as by checking out his (http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html) complete works or listening to Keith Lockitch's (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_darwin) talk, "Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution."

Comment by Clay: A belief is an idea taken from the perspective THAT it is held(in consciousness), rather than why it is held, or whether it is true or false. If we are assessing the truth or falsity of an idea it is no longer a matter or perspective on the belief. The slogan would seem to be an attack on the Christian notion that one has faith in god/jesus/etc and is content with mere belief rather than explicitly venturing into the realm of ideas where arguments for the truth of an idea become relevant. The implicit reading of the slogan would seem to be.. 'evolve' into critically thinking about ideas that are presented to you, rather than merely believing them b/c someone/something else said that it was so.

Around Colorado: 2/9/09

February 9, 2009

Subprime Suit

Tim Hoover (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11664539) writes for the Denver Post, "Countrywide Financial Corp. will pay $6 million as part of a settlement with the state stemming from litigation over its home-loan practices. ... The complaint against Countrywide alleged that it deceived borrowers by placing them in loans that had high risks of delinquency or default. The lawsuit alleged the lender used lax underwriting standards to give loans that borrowers soon found they could not repay as introductory rates expired and their mortgage payments skyrocketed."

If there was actual, demonstrated fraud in play, then a settlement may have been appropriate. However, surely the borrowers deserve some of the blame as well. Were not all the loan details available to the borrowers before they signed? Were they not aware of the "lax underwriting standards?" Were they not capable of figuring out a responsible mortgage load? A snake-oil salesman who commits fraud should be shut down. But the people who buy the snake oil are still idiots who deserve their share of the blame.

If the underwriting practices were fraudulent, then wasn't Countrywide victimizing itself by putting homes at risk of foreclosure?

I checked the Attorney General's web page and found a (http://www.ago.state.co.us/press_detail.cfmpressID=946.html) media release on the matter. "...Countrywide will make nearly $6 million available to eligible Colorado borrowers and to the State, including $500,000 for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Division of Housing to support the continued operation and expansion of the Colorado Foreclosure Hotline." Well, the state was not a victim of any fraud, so the state should not get any of the funds. Unfortunately, the release does not demonstrate that Countrywide's practices were fraudulent. Instead, the release complains about "marketing of subprime and other high-risk mortgage products in Colorado." But selling risky things is not a crime, nor is it fraudulent, provided the risks are not intentionally hidden. It's a pity that neither the newspaper article nor the media release shed much light on the matter.

Hoover also reports that Governor Ritter is promoting a bill to "allow a homeowner to contact a foreclosure counselor within 20 days of foreclosure. If the counselor determines the borrower is eligible, the homeowner would get an extra 90 days to work with a lender in order to keep the house." But government has no legitimate role in such negotiations. If banks understandably want to stem foreclosures, they have every right and ability to negotiate with mortgage holders free from political "help."

Bard David Balmer

Remember how House Speaker Terrence Carroll wanted legislators to be properly addressed? Here's what Representative Balmer (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11663891) had to say: "Mr. Speaker, Your excellency, the most high speaker, protector of thee, this chamber, protector of our most sovereign state of Colorado and defender of the faith. My lords and my ladies, I pray, lend me thine ears."

If only legislators were always so funny...

Legislative Updates

Here's a twist on the beer battle: it (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11660103) turns out that, while grocery stores may only sell low-alcohol beer, liquor stores cannot legally sell it. You know, it would be easier for people to respect the law if the law weren't so often completely ridiculous.

The Daily Sentinel also has a (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/02/08/020909_2a_beer_sales.html) story about the fight over beer controls. I've already made (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/good-beer-needs-no-political-force.html) my case for liberty.

The House (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11664204) wants to forcibly interfere with employment contracts.

Wow, (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11659816) this is news: the legislature is actually considering phasing out the business personal property tax.

The Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/care_47652___article.html/health_bill.html) editorializes, "The bill [1012], co-sponsored by Rep. Amy Stephens, a Republican from Monument, would allow insurance companies to offer discounts to customers who enroll in programs that help lower cholesterol, relieve stress and reduce other behaviors detrimental to their health." However, this bill is just trying to fix a problem caused by existing controls that force insurance providers to take all comers at similar rates in many cases.

Bailout Humor

When something is as horrible as the so-called bailout, sometimes all you can do is laugh. Here's (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11638961) one by Ed Quillen:

My bartender daughter Columbine told me last week that she had come up with a joke. She posted a sign that read: "Try our new drink, the Bailout. You don't know what's in it, and it's very expensive."

She figured it would be good for a few chuckles, and it was. But to her surprise, some people wanted to order a Bailout. Now she's trying to figure out the price and the ingredients—sort of like Congress.

Here's a Bailout (http://mtblog.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/12/01/federalbailout.html) Application Form.

And (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/02/new-symbol-of-bailout.shtml) here's an idea for a new national symbol, perfect for the bailout.

Voices for Reason

Okay, this isn't about Colorado, but the Ayn Rand Center has a (http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/) new blog that promises a steady stream of interesting commentary. For example, Alex Epstein summarizes his defense of Standard Oil.

Flight 1549: Too Busy Flying to Pray

February 10, 2009

God had nothing to do with saving Flight 1549, as I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/did-god-save-flight-1549.html) argued.

Recently the pilot of the plane, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/08/60minutes/main4783580_page2.shtml) explained to Katie Couric just what did save the day:

Asked if he at any point prayed, he told Couric, "I would imagine somebody in back was taking care of that for me while I was flying the airplane."

"My focus at that point was so intensely on the landing," he said. "I thought of nothing else."

There were just three and a half minutes for Captain Sullenberger to accomplish what only a few commercial airline pilots had ever done, and he was determined to avoid the fate of an Ethiopian airliner, which landed in the Indian Ocean in 1996 and broke into pieces, killing most of the passengers on board.

"What were some of the things you had to do to make this landing successful?" Couric asked.

"I needed to touch down with the wings exactly level. I needed to touch down with the nose slightly up. I needed to touch down at a descent rate that was survivable. And I needed to touch down just above our minimum flying speed but not below it. And I needed to make all these things happen simultaneously," he explained.

And he had to keep his cool. "The physiological reaction I had to this was strong, and I had to force myself to use my training and force calm on the situation," he said.

He told Couric that wasn't a hard thing to do. "It just took some concentration."

This is an amazing story of human courage. To pretend that God somehow saved the plane (apparently after allowing it to crash land) only detracts from the true causes of the happy ending: thoughtful action by pilot, crew, and passengers.

Around Colorado: 2/10/09

February 10, 2009

Stop Nudging Me

Colorado's own Dr. Paul Hsieh has an excellent (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-regulatory-chief-believes-in-paternalistic-government/) op-ed out with Pajamas Media criticizing Cass Sunstein's Nudge. As Hsieh makes clear, Sunstein's "nudge" is euphemism for "Do it or else;" it is a bridge to a full Nanny State and worse:

The basic premise of libertarian paternalism is that the government should use its power to "nudge" people into acting in their best interest, while leaving them the choice to "opt out." ... However, nudging represents an assault on freedom, because it undermines man's basic tool of survival—his mind. ... If Americans surrender their minds to the government, they become easy prey for demagogues and dictators. Once we concede the legitimacy of "nudging," nudges will inevitably escalate. Over time, libertarian paternalism will become less "libertarian" and more "paternalistic."

The basic problem is that, ultimately, the people doing the nudging can send in their armed thugs to make sure the "nudge" sticks.

Health Insurance: Relaxing the Grip

One problem with health insurance is that politicians have dramatically raised its cost by imposing all host of controls. At least one Colorado legislator is trying to slightly mitigate those controls. This is from the Colorado House GOP press secretary:

State Rep. Spencer Swalm, R-Centennial, believes that offering a low-cost alternative is an essential first step to ensure that Coloradans have access to affordable health care. Swalm will introduce his measure to allow health insurance companies to offer basic health care plans this afternoon.

"There are too many Coloradans who can't afford insurance the way it stands," Swalm said. "We need to make sure everyone has access to quality care and to health insurance."

House Bill 1143 would provide a low-cost option to Colorado's uninsured by creating a benefit plan with basic coverage for a low monthly premium. The plan was designed for working class employees who otherwise couldn't afford health insurance.

Let the Socialism Begin

So the so-called bailout (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/10/obama-congress-treasury-all-moving-economy/) passed the Senate. This is a shameful day for that body, and a tragic day for our nation. It's also a sad day for the generally sycophantic media.

But there are still some strong and independent voices out there. This morning the Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/10/stimulating-welfare/) editorialized: "The bill threatens even greater damage to the nation's fiscal health by expanding health-care entitlements. These new obligations would saddle future taxpayers with untold costs, potentially making millions of Americans—even those recently earning six-figure salaries—eligible for taxpayer subsidies."

Senators Udall and Bennet (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/10/udall-bennet-join-majority-passing-stimulus-packag/) both voted to pass the monstrosity. That sounds like a challenge to me, friends. But who will rise to meet it?

Legislative Updates

In a letter to the Rocky Mountain News, Peter Gross (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/10/businesses-should-pony-up-for-tourism/) blasts corporate welfare for tourism. D. Padilla (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/10/fee-on-plastic-bags-a-sneaky-way-to-tax-us/) criticizes the proposal to fine plastic bag use.

Max Noel (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/02/10/state-must-live-within-its-constitutional-limits/) writes to the Denver Post in defense of political spending restrictions.

The legislature (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/live_from_the_colorado_legislature/archives/2009/02/another_prodril.html) blocked an attempt to modestly limit the reach of oil drilling controls. Of course the larger problem is that politicians own practically all the land on which oil is drilled.

Huckabee on 'Anti-Religious' Stimulus

February 11, 2009

(http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/02/attack-on-people-of-faith.html) Along with Jim DeMint, Mike Huckabee is (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18668.html) primarily concerned that the so-called "stimulus" package is "anti-religious."

Andy Barr writes for Politico (via Paul Hsieh), "The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a 'school or department of divinity.'"

But declining to force people to fund religious institutions against their will is not "anti-religious," and forcing them to do so would violate their religious freedom.

The problem with the "stimulus" bill is not that it is "anti-religious," but that it massively violates rights through hundreds of billions of dollars of forced wealth transfers.

Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet a Success

February 11, 2009

MEDIA RELEASE

LOW-CARB FOOD STAMP DIET A SUCCESS
Week's Diet Proves Good Nutrition Possible on Low Budget

Ari Armstrong ate nutritious food February 4-10 for less than food stamps provide. For the week, he ate only meat, dairy, eggs, olive oil, vegetables, fruit, walnuts, chocolate, tea, and spices. He did not eat any grains, vegetable oils, hydrogenated fat, potatoes, or processed sugar.

For compete details about the diet, including receipts and photographs of select meals, see (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html).

Armstrong spent $33.07 for the week, or $4.72 per day. (He added 78 cents of bananas to preliminary figures.) However, he had around $5.30 worth of food left at the end of the week, bringing the daily total to around $4. Food stamps provide $5.68 per day to a single individual—see http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm.

Armstrong said, "With this diet, I wanted to prove again that eating well on a low budget is possible. I also wanted to protest increases in the food-stamp budget. People should not be forced to fund the unhealthy food-stamp program. Instead, I favor voluntarily funded food banks, which are better able to offer nutritious food to those in need."

Ari and his wife Jennifer spend a month in 2007 eating a higher-carb—but still nutritious—diet for $2.57 per day each.

* * *

My meals for the week obviously consisted of various combinations of the ingredients I purchased at the outset. It would be a little tedious, I think, to reproduce my meal-by-meal log here. A typical breakfast consisted of half a grapefruit, a cup of milk, and scrambled eggs with onion, garlic, tomato, and turkey. A typical lunch was soup. A typical dinner was a salad with red leaf lettuce, cabbage, olive oil, turkey, and a dash of pepper. My desserts were bananas with chocolate and cream.

My appetite was a little bigger on Saturday, as Jennifer and I sawed up and moved some large tree logs to the back yard.

On Saturday we also went into King Soopers to pick up stuff for Jennifer; the store was offering free samples of various foods, which I couldn't accept due to my self-imposed restrictions. Obviously, those on a true emergency budget would accept free food.

Last night I had a conversation with (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/) Diana Hsieh about carbs. She has researched diets a lot more than I have, and she largely inspired the low-carb approach for my week's diet. She claims that sprouted wheat is better for you than regular wheat flour. It's obvious to me that there's a huge difference between whole grains and, say, corn chips. But, within the category of whole grains, it's not at all obvious to me whether some carbs are better than others. Anyway, my approach will continue to be to eat a nutritious diet fairly low in carbs but still with some grains and a bit of cane sugar. I'll refine this as I learn more details.

At the end of the week, I had around $5.30 worth of food left.

Here are my estimates of the left-over values, in cents:

* Garlic: 30
* Salt: 45
* Pepper: 90
* 2 Eggs: 25
* 2 Pints Soup: 50
* Chocolate: 20
* Tea: 45
* Olive Oil: 180
* Cabbage: 10
* Onion: 20
* Lettuce: 25

I consumed almost an entire turkey during the week. So I think I'll lay off the turkey for a while. Today I'm going to make spaghetti squash with tomato sauce, hamburger, and various vegetables and spices. The squash cost me 49 cents per pound; the tomato sauce was on sale for 29 cents for 15 ounces. The hamburger is "all natural" beef on mark-down (I don't recall the exact price), so it was more expensive than regular hamburger but considerably less than the usual cost for "all natural" meat.

The upshot is that the diet was a complete success. I imagine it will be, oh, five or six minutes before somebody else is whining that it's just not possible to eat nutritiously on a food-stamp budget. My readers, at least, will know better.

Comment by Natural Beef: Getting all-natural beef with such a tight budget is a treat. Unless you know a local grower the stuff can get really pricey at stores like Whole Foods.

Comment by Ari: Well, it depends on how tight your budget is. You don't have to "know a local grower" to get good deals on all-natural beef. True, you'll pay more at Whole Foods—which is why I never buy meat there. But I've purchased all-natural, low-fat hamburger at King Soopers, on mark down, in the $3 to $3.50 per pound range. Turkey can regularly be found for less than a dollar per pound (whole birds). The same goes for whole chickens. Costco has some great, boneless pork roasts for $1.99 per pound. (Obviously meat with bones in it results in some waste.) You don't have to pay yuppie prices to get good meat.

Comment by Sharon: First of all--great project! Thanks for sharing. AND meat with bones is a great deal. Don't throw out them bones. They are a very valuable source of nutrition. No need to add veggies to your bone broth if you dont want. Just bones, water, a little salt and something acidic like vinegar or lemon juice. And simmmer. And you will have gelled gold. Throwing bones away is just wasteful.

Comment by Fester: This morning I was watching a Diane Sawyer documentary on the Appalachian mountains and in one part she says "meat and vegetables are a rare luxury for these folks who rely entirely on food stamps for there food". Then they show the same people drinking can after can of soda pop (also bought with food stamps).

Around Colorado: 2/11/09

February 11, 2009

Bailout Madness

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11673824) believes that the problem with the alleged "rescue plan" is that it lacks detail. No, the problem is that it exists. Which special-interest group gets how many dollars is rather beside the point.

Thankfully, Hannah Krening has a nice (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/02/10/the-stimulus-plan-9-letters/) letter in the (online) Post:

[W]e need a drastic reduction in taxes and government spending. Those who really produce in this country are "thanked" by being branded as villains, then taxed and regulated to death. Their money is then given to failing companies. Those badly run companies should face the realities of a global marketplace, evaluate their failures, and make necessary changes without government help—not be bailed out!

The government should protect individual rights, including the right to succeed (and reap the benefits of success), and also to fail (and bear full responsibility for that failure). The government should be limited to police, courts and national defense—not picking economic winners and losers.

Forcible Wealth Transfers Don't Create Jobs

It would be pleasant if news reporters would stick to reporting news, and leave the editorial remarks to the editorial section.

Jerd Smith (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/11/state-could-get-67-million-for-water-projects/) writes for the Rocky Mountain News, "Colorado water projects are in line to receive at least $67 million of federal stimulus money, funds that could help ease water woes from small towns to big cities and create jobs."

But even calling it "stimulus money" unjustifiably grants Obama's case. And claiming that it will "create jobs" is simply nonsense. If the Rocky can't do any better than that, it frankly deserves to fail.

This so-called "stimulus" money does not just fall from the sky. The funds come from somewhere. In this case, it comes from deficit spending, which reduces the amount of investments available for free-market industry. So the "stimulus" will "create" some jobs only by destroying others.

Yes, we are in a recession, and unemployment is higher than normal. The recession was caused by easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve and laws encouraging risky mortgages. Even under relative economic freedom, it takes time to unwind all the federally-promoted malinvestment and get the economy back on track. But the best, surest, and fastest route to sound, long-term economic recovery is to return to free markets; the U.S. currently is taking the opposite course. The "stimulus" will help some people at least in the short run, but only at the expense of longer term recovery.

As for water spending, politicians at multiple levels control the water industry. If it's a good idea to spend more money on some of these projects, it's a good idea whether or not we're in a recession, and "stimulating" the economy properly has nothing to do with it. The larger problem of the political takeover of the water industry is far too complicated a matter for today's post.

"It's Working"

Lynn Bartels (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/live_from_the_colorado_legislature/archives/2009/02/new_energy_econ.html) makes the same mistake in a blog posting. Her headline: "New energy economy: Hey, it's working." It's "working" to accomplish what? Sure, if you subsidize something and legislatively harm its competitors, you'll get more of it. So we have more wind farms. But this comes at the expense of higher total energy costs, lost production elsewhere in the economy, and lost economic liberty.

The Conservative Attack on Free Speech

Conservatives and liberals seem to be competing for which side can more viciously attack free speech. Today Tom Lucero, a supporter of Amendment 54, (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/11/lucero-rocky-distorts-clean-government-law/) writes, "'Campaign contributions are the equivalent of political speech,' the Rocky boldly proclaims, despite consistent Supreme Court rulings to the contrary. Independent expenditures can be considered protected speech, but not political contributions." Did you get that? Lucero is explicitly attacking not only free speech but property rights. The fact that the Supreme Court sanctioned such violations of rights does not change the basic facts.

Lucero supports Amendment 54 in the name of "clean government." Nothing could be dirtier than violating the right—the right!—of free speech.

Grocery Bags

Okay, so plastic bags are more environmentally friendly than paper bags, and they're more convenient for many shoppers. But, (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/11/a-differing-view-plastic-bags-an-environmental/) argue Scott Vickers and Mark Waddell, they contribute to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. But how much of this is due to plastic bags? Our authors claim it consists of "80 percent plastic products." (I have no idea where they're getting this information, or whether it's accurate.) Well, "plastic products" do not equal "plastic bags."

Perhaps our authors have noticed that Colorado is a land-locked state. Seriously, what fraction of the ominous Great Pacific Garbage Patch consists of plastic bags from Colorado? The fraction must be vanishingly small.

If the problem is littering, then we should address that problem directly, not ban useful products.

And yet the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the reason these authors offer for fining, and then banning, plastic bags at grocery stores in Colorado. Pathetic. Unless the writers are intentionally writing a parody, in which case, funny.

Barack Obama High

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/11/students-rename-boulder-high-barack-obama-high/) "A Boulder High student group is pushing to rename the school after a hot new historic figure: Barack Obama High School."

Well, why in the hell not? We should also carve his face into Mount Rushmore. Strike that: he deserves his own mountain. We can get on that right after we repeal the Constitutional limit of presidential terms. All Hail Caesar Obama.

D'Souza on Darwin

February 12, 2009

I agree with Dinesh D'Souza's central thesis (http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2009/02/12/the_two_faces_of_darwin) today: the biological theory of evolution does not, by itself, imply atheism or disprove supernaturalism. I hope that D'Souza's more evangelical brethren note at least the first part of D'Souza's claim: "[W]e can embrace Darwin's account of evolution without embracing his metaphysical naturalism and unbelief." If you're going to be a Christian, at least be a sophisticated one, not a snake charmer.

Beyond that, true to form, D'Souza impugns the motives of his opponents. D'Souza suggests that various atheists latch on to evolution as a way to display their hostility to religion and to God. He writes of Darwin:

When his young daughter Annie died at the age of 10, Darwin came to hate the God whom he blamed for this. This was in 1851, eight years before Darwin released his Origin of Species.

Around the time of Annie's death, Darwin also wrote that if Christianity were true then it would follow that his grandfather Erasmus Darwin and many of his closest family friends would be in hell. Darwin found this utterly unacceptable, given that these men were wise and kind and generous. Darwin's rejection of God was less an act of unbelief as it was a rebellion against the kind of God posited by Christianity. A God who would allow a young girl to die and good people to go to hell was not anyone that Darwin wanted to worship.

Whether or not Darwin's initial motivation was hatred of God, it's neither fair nor accurate to turn concerns over tragedies and hell into basically psychological issues. There is a big difference between rebelling against God—which presumes the existence of God—and concluding that God does not exist (and therefore there is no God to blame or rebel against).

D'Souza himself has (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/02/torkelson-to-believe-or-not-to-believe-hitchens/) acknowledged the theoretical difficulties of a God who permits " all the suffering" in the world. And the stricter notions of hell do tend toward a reductio ad absurdum of the faith. Now, many Christians have decent answers to the problem of suffering, and some Christians reject hell altogether. So neither of these issues definitively disproves Christianity.

Issues like evolution, suffering, and hell can prompt one to reconsider the more fundamental foundations of one's religion. While none of those issues, by itself, disproves religion, enough such concerns can—and should—promote a deeper examination of one's religious faith. Whether one ultimately retains or rejects that faith depends on one's deeper philosophical conclusions.

Comment by Anonymous: Here is Larry Auster's attack on Darwin: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012485.html Auster is a more sophisticated Christian apologist than D'Souza IMO. He lists four challenges to what he calls "Darwininans" at that link. All of his objections are straw men I think, but I am curious as to what your answers to Auster's objectiions would be as your analysis is usually spot on. Bob Sanders

Comment by Harold: As a side note, what is your view on the miracle in Buffalo? More people would have died had the plane been fully booked. Thankfully, someone upstairs intervened and spared those would-be passengers.
I'm still waiting for the holy rollers to explain this one.

Comment by Bob King: "Whether one ultimately retains or rejects that faith depends on one's deeper philosophical conclusions." Indeed. And in polite society, those conclusions should be inferred from behavior and otherwise kept as private as other matters that are properly personal and intimate.

Westword Covers Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet

February 12, 2009

Westword's Joel Warner (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/02/chowing_down_on_ari_armstrongs.php) razzes me a bit for writing about (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) food stamps when there are obviously bigger issues at play. In addition to the bailout, I noted to Warner that Social Security is a pending financial crisis.

If I could think of a week-long project to protest the bailouts, or Social Security, or the rapid expansion of federal power, a protest that the media would cover, I would do it. But there was an obvious way for me to disprove the claims that a food-stamp budget can only buy unhealthy food, so that's what I did.

Anybody who wants to read my voluminous writings against the bailout or Social security need merely search my page.

There is a broader point here: the bank bailouts operate on the same principle as food stamps: the needs of some impose a claim on the resources of others. I oppose the bank bailouts for the same reason I oppose food stamps: they violate individual rights. So there is a unity in my various campaigns.

Warner is a fun writer; here I'll merely highly a few of his comments.

He mentions my "dismally green turkey-stock soup;" ordinarily I add carrots, potatoes, brown rice, and beans to my soups. However, because of the artificial constraint of the seven-day timeline, I had to limit the number of products I could buy. However, even without the extras, the soup was pretty good.

What about the time it takes to prepare meals? I pointed two things out to Warner. First, I suspect that food-stamp recipients, on average, watch at least their share of television, so I don't feel too bad about asking them to divert a bit of that time to food-prep. Second, my usual routine is to cook a huge batch of something, which my wife and I eat over several days. So the per-meal food-prep time is minimal. I know busy people who cook on one day every week or two, then freeze portions to reheat later.

Are critics of food stamps a**holes? (I've committed myself to avoiding profanity on this page, though Westword's use of it obviously doesn't bother me.) Warner recorded my answer:

"I oppose the welfare state across the board. With a position like that, people are going to call me an a**hole in general. This will give them one more excuse to do that," he replies. "But what I think being an a**hole is, is locking someone in a cage if they don't want to give to the charity you think is acceptable. That is the root of the welfare state."

Does this need clarification? Let's say that you wanted to divert all your food-stamp spending to the local food bank. Can you do that? No; it's illegal. If you write a letter to the IRS saying, "This year I've reduced my tax payments to account for my diversion of resources to the local food bank," the IRS won't let you get away with that, and the ultimate penalty is that you go to jail.

I was unfortunately unclear in the online comments I left about payroll taxes. I wrote, "I wish Joel would have included a point that I mentioned to him: the payroll taxes, which lop off a combined 15.3 percent of one's pay check, create a terrible hardship for the poor and middle class. I favor repealing all payroll taxes (at least) for the poor." However, Warner did note my complaint about "the government's policy of lopping off a huge percentage of working-class paychecks to pay for unreasonable programs, many of which only benefit the wealthy."

I'm glad that Westword is around. It publishes some great investigative journalism. I do wish the paper would expand its scope a bit; it tends to cover sex, drugs, and rock and roll at the expense of other important issues. The paper does a fantastic job covering regional media. Given that it is largely an entertainment paper, perhaps we should consider ourselves fortunate that it devotes as much space as it does to important news.

Comment by Jim: I would add another significant accomplishment for this project: it demonstrated the role volition can play in improving one's life. Welfare recipients are told they are the powerless victims of external forces; in contrast, you demonstrated the link between choice and life. Better than teaching another to fish, you instructed, with their potential enrichment, the skill of choice. Bravo.

Around Colorado: 2/12/09

February 12, 2009

The Anti-Stimulus

Jon Williams (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/12/two-points-overlooked-in-socialist-stimulus/) writes, "The spoils of this government largess will accrue to politically connected unions, new government 'workers' and, amazingly, to the bankers and Wall Street sharks who have already pillaged their firms and investors." And other special interests.

George Will at least (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/12/will-headed-disaster/) plays a note of skepticism about the bailout madness.

Raiding the Cash Funds

Peter Blake (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/12/blake-more-backdoor-tax-hikes/) writes, "Gov. Bill Ritter has asked the legislature to shift up to $300 million from more than 20 state-run cash funds to the general fund... Cash funds are financed by special fees, surcharges and assessments paid by those who supposedly benefit from the governmental service each fund finances."

We wouldn't possibly want people to get what they pay for.

Plastic Bag Ban Advances

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/11/plastic-bag-ban-clears-first-hurdle/) "A Senate committee Wednesday night voted 4-3 for a bill that would ban plastic bags in large retail stores within three years."

Never mind that such a ban violates people's rights, generates hassles and inefficiency, and harms the environment. This is about legislation, not reasons. Ah, but it's inanity (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11683634) for the children, so it's okay. We must teach students the proper lessons about government.

Campaign Deform

Jessica Peck Corry (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11681197) explains some of the absurdities of Colorado's campaign finance laws. But let's not lose sight of the central issue: such laws violate the fundamental right of free speech. They should not be tweaked or reformed, but entirely repealed.

Obama Then and Now

February 12, 2009

I ran across this hilarious (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/) line at Barack Obama's web page: "Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue."

I guess I didn't realize that the new trillion-dollar "stimulus" package will be covered by cuts in other programs. Or, Obama is a damned liar, one of the two.

We're now operating on the spend-as-you-go (SAYGO) paradigm, otherwise known as the seat-of-your-pants approach (SOYP), or the special-interest-welfare-expansion program (SIWEX).

Comment by John: We have seen numerous examples of Mr. Obama's say one thing and do the opposite, i.e. no lobbyists, then immediately make exceptions as in the #2 at Treasury and Defense. Transparency, as in allow for a few days for a bill to be reviewed before its voted upon, except we must pass a trillion dollar spending bill today or the economy will implode tomorrow. Didn't we see this kind if irresponsible behaviour with the TARP bill?????

Comment by Anonymous: Here's another Obama smokescreen..."abortions should be rare"...while opening every door around the world to making abortions less rare than they've ever been before...including forcing ALL Americans to pay for shedding MORE innocent blood not just here but in other countries.

God's Stimulus

February 16, 2009

Karl Kappler wrote a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/14/gods-stimulus-plan/) peculiar letter to the Rocky Mountain News:

As our nation increasingly turns away from God, we are seeing the tragic results of our infidelity ("Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people," Proverbs 14:34.)

God is the one who bestows blessings on a nation. The proposed economic stimulus package is not the answer. We need to turn back to God if we want to see his stimulus plan unfold. And it's free!

But what is the mechanism by which "God's stimulus" is supposed to work? I take it he won't drop manna, or oil, or power lines from Heaven.

Usually, when one claims a particular cause for something, this is followed by some explanation of how the cause functions. For example, when I claim that the primary cause of the modern economic recession was political meddling in the economy, I point to easy-money Federal Reserve policies and other federal encouragements of risky mortgages (and other investments). But Kappler suggests a cause without explaining how it's supposed to work.

At least "LetsThink" does add some sort of causal theory in the online comments: "Humanists (John Dewey, etc.) took over our educational system, and taught Evolution theory (there is no God) to our youth for several generations. Their strategy worked. There has been an frightening explosion of crime, sex before marriage, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, gambling, and teen suicide."

With respect to crime, "LetsThink" is simply wrong: crime rates generally have fallen. But, even if the other trends are as stated, what does that have to do with the economic recession? Apparently there's a general loss of responsible action, which would feed into irresponsible lending and political decisions.

I actually think "LetsThink" is on to something. Obviously there are deeper ideological roots to the mortgage meltdown; why is it that politicians thought it was a good idea to try to manipulate the economy in certain ways? I do think that a breakdown of education has a lot to do with why so many people greet Obama's grand claims with credulity.

However, notice that America's left has essentially proposed a secular version of religious altruism. It is our duty to serve our fellow man, both lines posit. They merely differ in the details on how to promote that end.

It is a common error of Christian apologists to point to naughty atheists and pretend that they represent atheism. But atheism is not a positive philosophy; it rules out supernaturalism without suggesting a replacement. John Dewey—whose religious views I won't attempt to summarize—is as much my enemy as is the religious right.

Comment by Harold: "But what is the mechanism by which "God's stimulus" is supposed to work?" Somehow. Just have faith. I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with sex without marriage attached, pornography, homosexuality, or even--for the most part--abortion. LetsTalk does not say. But here's something interesting. That guy catches all this flak for being what? Consistent. Assuming he's not joking, he actually takes his religious beliefs seriously, as opposed to the pragmatists on there who try and filter their mysticism though some modern social filter--the origin of which probably eludes them. In this way, we have two offenses against truth. I'm not sure which is the worse.

Comment by Bob King: When people rail on about sin, it's interesting to point out that the Hebrew word is properly translated as "Mistake." This may cause one to wonder aloud why it is not so translated.

Around Colorado: 2/16/09

February 16, 2009

Keynes Belongs in Museum

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/15/new-energy-behind-obamas-choice-denver-stimulus-si/) "The Denver Museum of Nature & Science, with its 465 solar panels and focus on education, makes 'a perfect venue' for President Barack Obama to sign a historic $787 billion economic stimulus bill, Gov. Bill Ritter said Sunday."

I couldn't agree more. The so-called "stimulus" bill, and the Keynesian economics on which it rests, belongs in a museum, properly stuffed and mounted for display along with all the other failed ideas of the 20th Century.

Notice that the Rocky Mountain News blithely refers to this federal monstrosity as a the "economic stimulus bill," as though that were perfectly noncontroversial, straight news. Perhaps such lap-dog "journalism" is one reason why the Rocky also appears headed for the museum.

Food Stamp Abuse

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29110391/) "Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets born last month, gets $490 a month in food stamps, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday evening." Suleman also has six other children.

So, in other words, my wife and I are scraping by, trying desperately to climb out of debt so that we can responsibly afford a single child before my wife hits "Advanced Maternal Age," even as we are forced to subsidize this lady's fourteen children. That's an—interesting—sort of public policy.

Earlier this month I spent a week eating the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet, in which my daily food expenses, discounting the food left over, were around $4 per day. But our normal food budget is not a lot more than that.

Dems Ramp up Property Rights Abuses

Mike Krause (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1594) explains, "In 2007, the Democrat controlled legislature (with plenty of Republican support) approved HB 1275 which designates the Colorado National Guard as a law enforcement agency for the purpose of 'sharing in the federal asset forfeiture program' as part of the Guard's counter drug operation in Colorado. ... According to the Guard's Joint Counter Drug Task Force web page, 'Our primary function is to provide military unique skills and equipment as a force multiplier for law enforcement agencies involved in narcotics enforcement.' ... In Colorado, the 'war on drugs' has gone from metaphor to actual military action."

When law enforcement agencies get the booty from taking people's property, they have all sorts of perverse incentives to skirt justice as they fight their "war." If Colorado Democrats can't even stand up for basic civil liberties, then what good are they?

Andrews Defends Spending Restraints

John Andrews (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11694931) writes, "The state is in a $600 million hole because Gov. Bill Ritter and Democratic legislators ignored advice from Republicans—and even some fellow Democrats—to restrain spending and save for a rainy day. Now those same spendthrifts want us to remove constitutional guardrails so they can rev the budget again when good times return."

The fact is that the left, driven by special interests, will always want more political spending, regardless of how high it is at any given moment.

Car Fees

(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11712982) "Many Coloradans could see their annual state vehicle-registration fee more than double if a major transportation-funding proposal making its way through the state Capitol becomes law." Again, where's all the gasoline tax money going? Doesn't that better match use to funding?

Cell Phones and Driving

February 16, 2009

The following article originally was published February 16, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

We're from the government, and we're here to help you drive

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently we had a flat tire and found that the spare was also flat, so we hitched a ride to the gas station. We sat in the back seat while the driver held the following conversation with the other passenger.

"I was driving south on 30 Road the other day when a young woman with a cell phone stuck to her ear cut me off just before I was turning onto D Road!

"I've never given the one-finger salute, but, boy, let me tell you, if I were inclined this would have been the perfect time. But I guess I learned the fine art of profanity while driving around with my father, so I really let loose. The EPA could have closed commercial air space above the Valley because of that rant! I probably made Al Gore's global-warming ticker speed up.

"I'm so glad the legislature is finally looking to put an end to holding cell phones while driving.

"Anyway, this young 'lady' had no idea how much danger she had placed us in. I was looking at the newspaper ads for yard sales, and I was eager to beat everyone else to the best buys. I had to step on the gas to make up time.

"The week before, I had arrived late to the best yard sale in town, and the earlier risers had grabbed up all of the best buys! Not only did they take the best stuff, but they took all the best parking. So I just pulled in real close to another parked car for a spell so I could get in on the bargaining. Some guy driving by sneered at me, but it's not like he didn't have plenty of room to drive around. Sheesh!

"But I didn't make the next yard sale on time, either. When the lady with the cell phone cut me off, I spilled my coffee all over the paper! That was some hot coffee, boy, and it turned my classifieds, along with the world's news, to mush.

"The little [swear word] didn't realize that I was having a heck of time getting one of those little creamers open and into my coffee. But I have the problem licked, now; I get the lids with the drinking hole so I can poor my cream into that, along with the sugar. And I rip the cream open with my teeth.

"I hope the lady who cut me off was making a hot date or something. I hope it was worth it, because Spot's poor little doggie feet got burned by the coffee. He started dancing all over the dash.

"Poor Spot still won't get in my lap anymore, and he used to look so cute with his little paws on the wheel. All the kids used to love watching him help me drive! But my insurance company said it won't pay for Spot's counseling.

"Not only that, but I had little Suzie for the day, and she was a mess after that, let me tell you. She was in her car seat right behind me, so I couldn't find her pacifier till I got to a stop light.

"I don't know what the lady's cell phone cost her, but she cost me plenty. With Spot jumping around with burned little paws, he knocked my brand new electric razor right out the window. I had just bought that razor, too, on sale for 89 bucks. If the little twit had cut me off just a couple days earlier, all I would have lost is a cheap blade shaver.

"You would have laughed yourself silly—I upgraded after I reached for the shaving rinse cup instead of the coffee mug. Yuck.

"Look here for a sec—did I just smudge this eye-liner?

"They ought to pass a law. They just don't have enough laws. Let's pass a law to stop people from using cell phones in the car. Let's really get tough on the young teenagers. They're terrible drivers, and they can't vote, anyway.

"Hold on a minute—I want to find that country-western station on the radio... There it is. I had it on the classical station because it really relaxes Spot. Sometimes he likes to climb up in the back window and take a little snooze. His little chew-blankie is in the back seat; I like to tuck him in with it.

"Getting back to the law. I'm just sick and tired of people driving around chatting on cell phones, paying no attention to their driving. The police need to be spending their time looking for people using cell phones!"

The driver let us off at the gas station, where we breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that our safety rests in the hands of our state legislature.

Taxes and Religion in Schools

February 17, 2009

Mike Adams is (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2009/02/16/ask_god_what_your_grade_is) irritated that a teacher at Los Angeles City College called a student a "fascist bastard" for promoting religion in a class presentation. And Adams has picked an easy target; the teacher's behavior is inexcusable. However, the target is so easy that Adams neglects to put more serious issues in his cross-hairs.

Adams writes, "In November, Jonathan Lopez attempted to give his informative speech on God and the ways he has seen God act miraculously in his life and in the lives of others. In the middle of that speech, Lopez spoke of God and morality and read the dictionary definition of marriage. He also read two verses from the Bible."

Curiously, Adams neglects to mention what the two Bible verses were, but it's clear where this was headed. The teacher, Adams relates, is a supporter of gay marriage.

The teacher, John Matteson, left a note with the student: "prostyelsyszing [sic] is inappropriate in a public school."

You could make a pretty good case that any teacher who refers to students "fascist bastards"—as this teacher apparently did twice—should be fired. What a jerk. Yet Adams fails to seriously explore matters of free speech in the context of tax-funded institutions.

Adams equates the teacher's conduct with censorship with a "chilling effect on First Amendment expression." (I would be interested to learn whether Adams is similarly committed to overturning censorship of pornography and unsavory language.)

The basic issue, then, is whether the student has a Constitutionally protected right of free speech to rail against homosexuals in a tax-funded classroom. The only possible answer is that no answer is possible. Forcing others to fund religiously motivated attacks on homosexuals violates their rights of free speech—people have the right not to fund speech they find offensive. But excluding such speech violates the rights of the student and his supporters, who also pay (or will pay) taxes. Forced wealth transfers for the propagation of ideas inherently violates people's rights.

The only solution that consistently upholds people's right of free speech—along with their rights of property—is to stop the forced wealth transfers. But Adams, along with practically all conservatives, show no interest in that. Instead, many conservatives look to increase tax funding of "faith-based initiatives" and the like.

On a free market, should schools allow speeches, in speech class, of a religious or bigoted nature? I think so. However, a school that allows attacks on homosexuals is going to have a hard time banning racist speeches. My sense is that the student should be able to meet the assignment according to his own judgment, and if he's an idiot, he will earn a reputation as such. Teachers obviously can grade down for lack of cogent argument. Surely there are lines that no school would like to cross, such as neo-Nazi marches on campus. But these are tricky issues best left to the boards and leaders of private institutions.

Pork Roast Rally in Photos

February 18, 2009

Here are my photographs of today's "Pork Roast" Rally in opposition to the so-called "stimulus" package that President Obama signed today. Both events took place in Denver. My photos may be reproduced if credited to FreeColorado.com. See (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/02/denver-anti-stimulus-rally.html) Slapstick and (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/17/yes-we-care-porkulus-protesters-holler-back/) Michelle Malkin for additional photos and notes. In a future post, I'll include audio of the event and extensive commentary.

The $30,000 estimate of the total per-household cost for the "stimulus" (http://www.journaltimes.com/paul_ryan/post.php?idvar=60) comes from Representative Paul Ryan.

Jim Pfaff of (http://www.americansforprosperity.org/colorado) Americans for Prosperity prepares to address the crowd congregated at the State Capitol [photo omitted].

Left-wingers Jason Salzman and Michael Huttner come out for the show.

Jon Caldara of the (http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=1) Independence Institute fires up the crowd [photo omitted].

Michelle Malkin delivers a short but feisty talk.

"One Trick" Tom Tancredo does what he does best: lament immigration.

State Senator Shawn Mitchell, on the other hand, addresses the matter of the day with his cold logic and passionate ideals.

State Senator Josh Penry, the man on the radar of Salzman and Huttner, may run for higher office next year.

Brad Jones of (http://facethestate.com/) Face the State (with the still camera) and Michael Sandoval of (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/) Slapstick Politics (with the video camera) cover the event [photos omitted].

This was the lucky pig at the rally, who seemed to be enjoying himself. (Or herself.)

This was the unlucky pig, served with a smile by Michelle Malkin to protest the pork-laden "stimulus" package.

Comment by Mike Spalding: Channel 9's web coverage said there were 200 attendees. This is low but not as outrageous as Channel 7. Channel 7 had a report on the noon news claiming that only 25 protesters showed up.

Pork Roast Mixes Liberty, Populism, and Partisanship

February 18, 2009

It was a hugely successful rally today at Denver's state capitol to protest the so-called "stimulus" package that President Obama signed while in town. Hundreds of people showed up. Jon Caldara ripped up dollars as an act of civil disobedience to protest the "stimulus." The hugely popular Michelle Malkin arrived with roasted pork. A live pig trotted about. Speakers denounced the federal spending, guiding the crowd alternately in cheering, booing, and chanting. The media attended, and some even (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11723541) covered the event.

Despite the overwhelming media cheerleading for Obama's "stimulus" package, a lot of regular people remain angry about it, very angry, and the success of today's rally shows only a little of that bubbling to the surface.

At the same time, the rally sent a few mixed messages, a few of the participants stepped out of line, and Republican partisanship carried the day. Former congressman Tom Tancredo spent several minutes of the rally ranting against immigration, both legal and illegal. Several others wore anti-immigration shirts or carried anti-immigration signs. These folks don't want economic liberty: they merely want the federal government to control the economy in different ways. A couple of guys shouted down Michael Huttner, a left-wing activist, as I was trying to interview him. The fact that Dick Wadhams, chair of the state GOP, took the stage indicates the partisan flavor of the event.

A personal anecdote suggests why I felt a bit out of place. I had printed a few signs with two messages: "Stimulus? Try Liberty," and "What Would Mises Do?" Yes, I know that, in the general culture, Mises is an obscure figure recognized by few. Yet I still like the quote, as it might provoke some to look him up. I figured that Mises would be widely recognized by those at the rally and that the signs would elicit knowing glances of solidarity. Yet when I offered somebody a sign, I heard, "Who's Mises?" I explained with understatement, "He's a free-market economist."

Perhaps I shouldn't make too much of it; after all, somebody else had a sign referring to Hayek's Road to Serfdom, while another sign referred to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Still. "Who's Mises?" At a rally supposedly about economic liberty? That's a bit like asking "who's Jesus" at Catholic mass or "who's Lars" at a Metallica concert.

But on with the rally. My photos of the event (https://ariarmstrong.com/2009/02/pork-roast-rally-in-photos/) are available, and Slapstick (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/02/denver-anti-stimulus-rally-videos.html) provides video of the event. For those who prefer lower-bandwidth mp3 audio, I've provided a (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2009/rally/rally1.mp3) recording of the entire formal event.

Jim Pfaff from Americans for Prosperity kicked off the event:

Is everybody stimulated? [Crowd chants "no!"] Why not? Because it's not stimulus. We're here today today to say, Barack Obama, you don't know stimulus.

Stimulus is when individuals and businesses are able to take their own decisions and go out and make a life for themselves. To pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now do you pursue happiness through big-government programs? You make your decisions for happiness.

You should be able to make those decisions, and this stimulus package takes decision-making away from individuals like yourselves. And we want to say no more pork. ...

We want real stimulus, and that's what we're here to talk about today. When you consider Barack Obama's program, he takes money from current and future taxpayers, promising to "invest"—so-called—in the economy. Except that it's not going to work. He's going to have to come back and ask for more money, and we're here today to say, no more money.

That, to me, guys, looks like a Ponzi scheme. And in my opinion, Obama, Pelosi, and Reed are the Burnie Madoff Democrats who want to take our money and use it for their purposes, and we're here to say, no more!

Next, Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute took the microphone:

So, are we feeling stimulated yet? Let's make this clear: this is not what we usually do. Usually at this time of day, we're at work. All we want to do is get back to work—and keep what we earn. According to the CBO, the long-term impacts of this is going to be about $30,000 per family. ...

Caldara introduced Michelle Malkin, who ripped also the Republicans who supported the stimulus:

Thank you, my fellow un-Patriots. You know, Barack Obama gave special phone calls to the members of what I call the turn-coat caucus, Specter, Snow, and Collins, who were behind the engineering of this trillion-dollar sell-out. And he praised them for their patriotism. And my response is, if selling out our children and our grandchildren's future is patriotism, I am very proud to be an un-Patriot in the age of Obama.

When President Obama signs the bill here in Denver, it will represent an unprecedented act of generational theft in this country.

Chuck Schumer said that there wasn't anybody in this country who cared about the pork in this bill. And I think that the most important reason that we're here today is to say, yes, we do care. ...

Caldara next introduced Tancredo. He said, "If President Obama wanted to do one thing for American workers... he would stop the illegal immigration into this country. He would reduce the number of people coming here every day legally." Wow. Not a single word about restoring economic liberty, because that is not a goal that the Tancredo wing of the GOP shares. Why Caldara invited Tancredo is beyond me.

Shawn Mitchell thankfully and predictably stuck to theme:

Today is unfortunately historic. It marks one of the biggest, most expensive mistakes in the history of American domestic policy. Obama-Reed-Palosi couldn't decide if they wanted a bill that was an economic boost, a big-spending welfare wish-list, or a politician free-for-all pork fest. So they did all three. I don't get it. If the problem is that people are borrowing too much on credit cards and on home equity, how does it help things for the federal government to shove us aside and show us what a world-class credit binge looks like?

We today, sadly, are betting our grandchildren's future on the falsehood that you can spend your way to prosperity. You cannot. The Obama-Reed-Palosi lurch to the left is not the change that Americans voted for. We need to remember, we need to get involved, and tell the federal government, live within your means. Thank you.

State Senator Nancy Spence, having to compete with the introduction of the live pig, made some noncommittal remarks about how politicians have to do something, just not what this bill states.

State Senator David Schultheis complained that the "stimulus" package does not sufficiently crack down on illegal immigration. It is a shame that Mitchell had to compete with such off-topic nonsense.

State Senator Kevin Lumberg again got back on track but offered no new substance.

State Representative Cindy Acree said, "Thank you Coloradans for joining together to say that we don't expanded government intervention in our lives. We can manage our lives, our businesses, our health care better than the government can."

Josh Penry, showing good stage presence, said, "I believe that history will remember this vote, this moment, this bill as the moment when Republicans reclaim the mantle of fiscal discipline that is rightfully ours." That would certainly be a nice change of pace.

Wadhams pointed out that many Republicans opposed the so-called bailout. Caldara followed the state GOP chair's brief remarks with the unconvincing note that "this is not a Republican or Democrat event." He then introduced yet another Republican politician, State Representative B. J. Nikkel, who delivered a nice if generic speech. Then Pfaff predicted that Colorado would again be a "red state."

State Senator Kent Lambert said:

We're going to start the road back this afternoon; I'm introducing a bill, we're going to have it here in committee this afternoon, to do something that many of you will find very interesting and will support. That's to put the state checkbook back on the gold standard. Starting this afternoon we're joining with other states to do this. We're going to bring fiscal responsibility back to the United States of America.

I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. States cannot possibly reinstate the gold standard; that is a federal matter.

Peggy Littleton from the state board of education tried unsuccessfully to tie the "stimulus" to her position. (By this time I was wondering just how many speakers Caldara had invited. I guess it's good to get them on record.)

State Representative Frank McNulty repeated the same stuff. He did let slip, "How can a president who campaigned on change give us so much more of the same?" Do you mean, more of the same of what George W. Bush gave us?

Finally—thank God it was nearly over—Pfaff regained the microphone, which he passed off to Caldara to close out. Caldara said, "We believe we can spend our money better than government can. In order to support this package, you must believe one simple truth: that somehow Washington can spend your money better than you can."

Again, it was overall a great rally. Still, while it is totally legitimate to criticize pork-barrel, special-interest spending, the fundamental issue is not pork. The fundamental issue is that people have the right to control their own income and associate voluntarily, and therefore forced wealth transfers and political controls of the economy are wrong. The issue, then, individual rights, as manifest in a free market, the system of economic liberty. Yet, by my count, all the speakers combined mentioned the word "liberty" exactly once, and they did not mention free markets or individual rights. Caldara and Pfaff did say that people should be able to control their own resources, and several other speakers at least hinted that economic liberty is a good thing. Yet two of the speakers concentrated their remarks on further violating economic liberty through protectionist immigration restrictions. Thus, as successful as the rally was, it was also a missed opportunity in many ways.

I'll continue the discussion in a subsequent post, "Stimulus and Partisanship."

Comment by Fester: I find these people hard to take seriously. They seem to hate big government only when it is pushed by a democrat. I am not surprised that they have never heard of Mises, Mises is less popular in republican circles than a gay Mexican immigrant prancing around in a Zorro mask singing "puff the magic dragon". If you need any proof, just look at how they treated Ron Paul. Ron Paul had his problems (I disagree with him on immigration, abortion and a few other issues), but McCain recommended he read "Wealth of Nations" and come on, anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that Ron Paul has read many books by many free market economists, and his economic knowledge far surpasses McCain's.

Comment by Anonymous: The author of this piece needs to learn the difference between legal and illegal immigration. He states in several of his commentaries that there were several people at the rally who wore anti-immigration shirts and carried anti-immigration signs. Having been at the rally there was not one sign that was anti immigrant. There was a shirt that said Stop ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and SIGNS that said E-Verify then D-Port Illegals. E-Verify was taken out of the Stimulus package and if this administration is concerned with employment of American workers, it's certainly not the time to do away with the verification of illegal alien lawbreakers. Simply put, the writer has no argument and seems to not be a fan of America's beloved Congressman Tancredo. He;s not too keen on Senator Scultheis as well. I suggest the writer go to www.numbersusa.com and become educated on the topic. It's people like the writer who are clueless on the invasion of America and tends to open his mouth and insert his foot.

Comment by Ari: I guess it's appropriate that I take flak from idiots on the left and idiots on the right in the same day. If you want to deport all "illegal immigrants"—meaning millions of people—you are substantially "anti-immigration." I also oppose illegal immigration—because I think all immigration (except for criminals or the contagiously ill) should be legal. Tom Tancredo, one of the speakers, explicitly said he wants to further limit legal immigration as well. The link between illegal immigration and the so-called "stimulus" package is at most tangential, and the related signs, as well as the speeches by Tancredo and Schultheis, were entirely inappropriate. As for my arguments, my purpose in this post was not to defend legal immigration. Readers are welcome to search my web page for "immigration," where they will find plenty of material on the topic.

Comment by Senator Schultheis: I do not know if the writer is just plain ignorant or trying to make a leftist argument, by saying that illegal immigration is a non-starter in this stimulus package, but the best job-producing effort would be to require that all newly-hired employees be vetted against the Federal E-verify program. That would free up tens of millions of jobs for citizens who have lost theirs.
It is a shame when political agendas come before what is best for America.

Comment by Ari: At least nobody can confuse Senator Schultheis's protectionist rubbish with anything related to free markets. Anyone who has actually read the great free market economists understands that the jobs of some need not come at the expense of the jobs of others.

Dollhouse

February 18, 2009

Joss Whedon's new television show, Dollhouse premiered last Friday, and the first episode is now available (http://www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=dollhouse) online. I've seen it twice, and it held my interest both times. Whedon is obviously planting the seeds for a lot of backstory and plot lines, including the apparently criminal mistake made by the lead character, known as Echo once she enters the Dollhouse. (Eliza Dushka of Buffy the Vampire fame plays Echo.) The first episode also hints at something interesting—and disturbing—in the past of a doctor at the facility played by Amy Acker, another of Whedon's top finds from Angel.

What is the Dollhouse? It's an illegal operation that signs up semi-willing participants to have their personalities erased so that they can be reprogrammed for particular missions—er, "engagements"—ranging from high-end escort services to mercenary-type actions. In the first episode, Echo helps negotiate the release of a kidnapped girl.

I'm looking forward to more. Just don't screw it up, Fox. By the way, Universal, where are the Serenity sequels? If you get your marketing act together, I'm confident two additional films would make money, especially now that the stars are better-known actors.

On a completely unrelated note, we watched Blindness, an awful, terrible, grotesque little film to be avoided at all costs.

Comment by chadmany2k: Fran Kranz is amazing in The Dollhouse. Is anyone here a big fan? I also found him on showbizzle.com—this new website for actors. Characters like (http://www.viddler.com/explore/showbizzle/videos/3/) THESE show off their stories. haha, it's hilarious at times.

Comment by Tenure: What didn't you like about Blindness? I saw it was going to be on at the cinema but decided to give it a miss, and then thought that maybe I should have seen it. Was it so bad?

Comment by Ari: The premise is that everybody (except one lady) goes blind due to some illness that scientists can neither identify nor cure. Much of the movie takes place in a quarantine building, in which some of the blinded inmates behave basically like barbarians. The overall theme of the movie is that people are fundamentally not in control of their lives. The sighted woman, for instance, takes very few constructive actions that were possible to her.

Stimulus and Partisanship

February 18, 2009

Partisans to the left of me, partisans to the right. It was a sea of party politics. The partisans of good ideas, the searching thinkers, those who criticize the errors of their friends with the same enthusiasm that they criticize the errors of their enemies, were hard to find.

This is my third article about yesterday's "Pork Roast Rally" in protest of the so-called "stimulus" package. I've also published (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/pork-roast-rally-in-photos.html) photos of the event and extensive (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/pork-roast-mixes-liberty-populism-and.html) commentary about it (along with an audio recording). As I mentioned, the event was overly partisan, in the party sense, to fulfill its potential as a pro-liberty rally. But the few left-wing activists in attendance were no less devoted to party politics.

The Swastika Sign

Take, for example, the sign with the swastika. Mark Wolf (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/rockytalklive/archives/2009/02/obamaswastika_sign_at_antistim.html) writes about this and displays a photograph. (http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/about/50/michael-huttner-executive-director) Michael Huttner and (http://effectcommunications.com/?About_Us:Staff_Bios:Jason_Salzman) Jason Salzman, the two left-wingers who attended, noticed this sign, took multiple photographs of it, and made a big deal out of it.

The sign was a dumb idea. Okay, the technical economic definition of fascism is political control of nominally private property, so in that sense Obama is moving in the direction of fascism (as was Republican George W. Bush before him). But the Nazis were particular sorts of fascists with a genocidal racist bent. Does that in any way describe Obama? No. So why go there? Besides that, using Nazi imagery tends toward shrillness in the course of normal American politics, and it is imagery that is easily misinterpreted (either innocently or willfully). So, again, dumb idea.

But the left's treatment of the sign is ridiculously hypocritical. Let's think back... did anyone on the left ever, at any point, call Bush a fascist or equate him with Hitler? Obviously. Many, many times. So why is it okay for the left to do it but not the right? (I think both sides ought to calm down a bit and stick to the substantive issues.) Did Huttner and Salzman condemn their fellow leftists with equal vigor? Hardly.

Huttner's organization has also made a big deal out of the fact that Michelle Malkin had her photograph taken with the guy and his sign. But the guy approached Malkin, as did many others. If a guy with a "Bush = Hitler" sign had his picture taken with a prominent left-wing pundit, what would Huttner and Salzman have to say about that? I imagine they would say something like, "Look, you can't condemn a whole crowd, or a popular pundit, for one random rallier's stupid choice in imagery." And that would be the sensible view. Whatever happened to the goose-gander rule?

Bailout Madness: Bush Versus Obama

My view is consistent: the Obama "stimulus" package is bad, and so was Bush's. This is a view rooted in the ideas of liberty, not party politics. I am perfectly happy to condemn Republicans and Democrats alike for violating economic liberty and individual rights.

My Democratic and Republican friends were less eager to do so. Huttner actively promoted the Obama "stimulus" while condemning Bush's. Jon Caldara and State Senator Shawn Mitchell opposed Obama's "stimulus" and expressed opposition to Bush's stimulus—just before explaining why it was more justified than Obama's. I found their respective attempts to defend their parties humorous.

To their credit, both Caldara and Mitchell came out strongly against the federal expansions of the Republican Bush. Meanwhile, I have yet to meet a Democrat who does not treat Obama as something approaching Messianic.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2009/rally/rally2.mp3) Here is an audio recording of Huttner's comments. Huttner's position of opposing the Bush "bailout" while endorsing Obama's "bailout" makes no sense whatsoever.

Listeners will also notice that a couple of misguided ralliers started shouting down Huttner in the middle of my interview. Salzman is saying, "Let him speak!" in the background. I'm saying, "hey, hey," trying to shut up the rallier as he was telling Huttner to "get the hell out of here." Look, I understand that passions tend to run high during rallies, but Salzman and Huttner had every right to be there. The entire purpose of the rally was to capture some of Obama's media on the "stimulus" signing. Salzman and Huttner, likewise, were trying to capture some of the ralliers' media, and they succeeded. That's the way the game works, so keep those tempers in check.

I've compiled the (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2009/rally/rally3.mp3) comments of Caldara and Mitchell on the respective "stimulus" packages (sorry about the wind, which was incredibly strong in Denver yesterday, prompting me to joke that the "winds of change" aren't so pleasant).

Caldara argued that, while he opposed the Bush bailout, at least the money is supposed to be paid back. That struck me as a weak defense; clearly taxpayers won't get back a good chunk of that money. Plus, Caldara included tax breaks as part of Obama's "stimulus" package; shouldn't those be treated differently than straight spending, if we're going to treat "loans" differently?

Mitchell made a more sophisticated argument about liquidity (while again opposing the Bush bailout). But the argument is bogus. What the Bush bailout accomplished was to reward failing banks and prevent the financial restructuring that would have put the economy on sounder footing. Bush also oversaw a massive assertion of more federal control over the banking industry, re-writing private contracts as he went. The long-term result of this will be to further socialize banks, leading to less economic stability and more political manipulation. As for the general liquidity argument, clearly the Federal Reserve—itself a political intrusion in the market—ought not artificially reduce the money supply, as it did during parts of the Great Depression. But that's far different than just handing out "free" money to banks, which in some cases were essentially blackmailed into taking the funds whether they wanted them or not.

In general, a recession is not a primary economic problem: it is a symptom of previous malinvestment promoted by the federal government. As George Reisman (http://georgereisman.com/blog/2009/01/falling-prices-are-antidote-to.html) exlpains, a recession is the period of readjustment, in which businesses tend to slash (nominal) prices and wages in the process of getting the economy going again. Not only is federal "stimulus" unnecessary for recovery, it damages real economic recovery.

I realize both Caldara and Mitchell were playing devil's advocate while opposing the Bush bailout. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that their first reaction was not to blast Bush's bailout and explain why it was a bad idea, but to defend it relative to Obama's bailout. That is a party instinct that I do not share.

Notes on Partisanship

Salzman and Huttner carried around a ridiculous sign blaming the recession solely on George W. Bush and Colorado State Senator Josh Penry, neglecting the obvious fact that the federal congress as well as the entire state government have been in the hands of Democrats for some time. Their logic—that rising unemployment in the last year of Bush's presidency proves that Bush and his fellow Republicans alone caused the recession—is laughably simplistic. In fact both Democrats and Republicans had a hand in forming the federal policies over many years that ultimately culminated in the recession. To blame Bush alone is silly enough; to add Penry to the mix is just partisan stupidity. (As Salzman acknowledged, they expect Penry to run for higher office next year.)

I've also spliced together (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2009/rally/rally4.mp3) comments of Huttner, Caldara, and Mitchell on partisanship.

Huttner's idea of moving beyond partisanship is for everybody to follow Obama. Well, no thanks. Certainly I advocate partisanship for good ideas, if not for parties.

Caldara defended his speaking list without adding much new.

Mitchell came out strongly against Bush, saying, "George Bush was a terrible domestic president in many ways. Actually I think he was pretty good on supporting growth-oriented tax policies, and on at least raising the issue of Social Security. Beyond that, he was a big-spending, over-regulating mistake."

Now that was a good answer that went beyond party politics.

The GOP's Faith-Based Problem

Unfortunately, when I asked Mitchell about the GOP's problems with social issues, his answer was less convincing. I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado.html) argued that the GOP's faith-based politics, in addition to being wrong, is a huge political obstacle.

Mitchell tried to downplay the social issues:

It's a real conflict, but the juxtaposition is grossly exaggerated. When you talk about social policy, we're talking basically about abortion and marriage policies. ... Even if you hold socially conservative views on those two issues, it doesn't thrust the state nearly as heavily into everyone's doings as liberal economic control does.

Anyone who has read the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper I coauthored against Amendment 48 knows why I disagree with Mitchell on that point. The tendency toward theocracy is at least as dangerous as the tendency toward left-wing socialism.

To me, Mitchell is the prime example of the Republican tragedy. He's very smart, and he truly gets the economic case for liberty. At the same time, he promotes rights-violating government in personal areas. Republicans who could combine Mitchell's economic sense, public grace, and brains with the corresponding social views of liberty would be unstoppable in Colorado. Such candidates could make clean, thoughtful, partisan politics something to again savor.

Unless that happens, I say a pox on both parties' houses.

Comment by Anonymous: Ari, the idea that Jon Caldara of all people is somehow a Republican apologist, or some kind of Republican at all is laughable. He is "married" to principle as much as you are.

Maher Tackles Religion

February 19, 2009

The most amazing thing about Bill Maher's Religulous, a documentary that criticizes religions of all stripes, is that, so far as I know, Maher hasn't had to worry much about death threats. This movie is a lot more insulting to Islam than, for instance, the Danish cartoons. But Maher is an American, and moreover he's a comedian. Strangely, then, Maher was able to make a more interesting documentary than might have been possible to more "serious" documentarians. I recommend it, despite a variety of flaws.

Religulous has a split personality. It is filled with low-brow jokes and cheap shots. Yet it also reveals a wealth of interesting facts about many religions, such as the predecessors of Christian myths, and its concluding message is surprisingly serious. "Religion must die for mankind to live," says Maher in the closing segments, in which nuclear blasts are superimposed with religious passages. Dark words for a funny man.

The film has two main shortcomings. First, Maher pokes fun at the many absurdities of religion, the low-hanging fruit, but he never gets around to talking about the most sophisticated forms of religion. Thus, Maher's conclusions don't follow from his arguments.

Second, Maher offers no real alternative to religion, he offers only doubt. He is "preaching the gospel of 'I don't know.'" "Doubt—that's my product," he says. But if he has no answers to the "big questions," how is he possibly going to get the religious to seriously question their faith? In a contest between religion and nothing, religion will win every time. The religious do not lack doubt—they doubt everything Maher has to day. But man cannot live by doubt alone. He needs a positive philosophy. In the absence of a serious alternative, religion will continue to dominate.

Comment by Luke Baggins: It's interesting that he puts such a bold sweeping (and true) statement as "Religion must die for mankind to live." alongside "Doubt is my product." Saying anything about what must happen for mankind to live involves a claim to a very far reaching kind of certainty. Didn't Hitchens similarly undercut the title of his book "How Religion Poisons Everything" with some kind of claim to not be sure of anything? Environmentalists are making similarly far reaching claims every day and nobody is asking them how they can be so sure. But then, they aren't appending a disclaimer to their statements like Maher and Hitchens.

Comment by Anonymous: "But man cannot live by doubt alone. He needs a positive philosophy."
I must disagree. Doubt is hardly negative. It's simply the impetus which drives curiousity and the inability to be satisfied with simple, fatuous explanations. Example: how was the world created? Answer: God made it. Um. No. Doubt keeps the rational from accepting this "explanation."
Moreover, to imply that man needs a "postive philosophy" is wrong on two counts:
1) It implies that religion is positive (since we must find a "positive" replacement.)
2) It implies that disbelief in religion is some kind of loss. It is not. It is intellectual freedom. It's the ability to live by a code of ethics based on humanism rather than centuries-old mythology. That's positive enough for me.

Comment by Ari: 1. The matter of how the world was created is a question for natural science, not philosophy. Moreover, the religious have doubt; for instance, many doubt the truth of evolution. 2. I was not suggesting that religion is "positive" in the sense of being good. 3. Doubt is obviously not enough. How do you gain knowledge? How do you operate in the world? What or who is the appropriate beneficiary of your actions? Is it, for instance, right or wrong for you to steal and beat people you don't like? Doubt doesn't cut it: you need real answers to such questions.

Comment by Anonymous: I see what you're saying, but that isn't my point. (Altho, I'd point out the very religious do assert that the creation of the world is a question for religion.)
The idea that one needs a "positive philosophy" is an interesting statement, but I see no evidence to support it. Some very successful individuals have lived long lives with a philosophy best described as "Me first and to hell with anyone else." Without getting into a semantic argument, I'm saying that the lack of religion in one's life is no lack at all. For me, doubt is enough. Or, if you prefer a better term: skepticism. Choosing the answer to life's questions by leaning toward the answer with the preponderence of evidence. Works for me.
To believe that one must "replace" religion with something demands that you think religion worthy of replacement. It's not. Myth, superstition, and nonsense can all be safely jettisoned without the need to replace them.
(Just an aside, but your questions in #3 don't really illustrate your point. If they are questions that must be answered in the absence of religion then, presumably, you feel that religion answers them. Which it does. Sort of. "Is it, for instance, right or wrong for you to steal and beat people you don't like?" Yes, if they're unbelievers. And so on. But, as I'm sure you'll agree, those answers aren't very good ones.)

Comment by Bob King: I'm completely unworried about sophisticated faiths. It's the "low hanging fruit" that is likely to cause slaughter. It always has been. And we have people trying to enforce the evangelizing of the Air Force Acadamy. People who will one day be in charge of nuclear weapons and technically capable of bypassing their safeguards. That should be seen as a significant national security threat.

Huttner's Hypocrisy

February 19, 2009

February 19, 2009

MEDIA RELEASE

WILL HUTTNER APOLOGIZE FOR COMMENTS AT PROGRESS NOW COLORADO CALLING CONSERVATIVES FASCISTS OR NAZIS?

On February 17, Michelle Malkin attended a "Pork Roast Rally" in Denver organized by Jon Caldara to protest the so-called "stimulus" package. Republican State Senator Josh Penry also spoke at the rally. A rallier unknown to Malkin and the event's organizers carried a sign calling Obama a Nazi by putting a swastika with Obama's name. This person, along with many others, approached Malkin and had his photograph taken with her.

Michael Huttner, Executive Director of Progress Now Action, also attended the rally.

On February 18, Huttner issues a media release stating, "Does Penry support the misuse of the Nazi swastika for political self-gain? We do not need Penry and Malkin to return Colorado to the hate state."
https://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/al/CQ9j

Penry indeed condemned the sign, the Rocky Mountain News reports:
https://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/19/columnist-isnt-smiling-over-swastika-in-rally/

The Rocky Mountain News also reports: "One of the groups criticizing Malkin over the photo is Progress Now Colorado. Michael Huttner, who heads the group, said the organizers of Tuesday's rally should condemn the sign and offer an apology."

Yet Huttner's own web page features numerous comments calling George W. Bush and other conservatives fascists or Nazis:

"So what are the issues the right wingers decry? Overland High School instructor Jay Bennish sees some similarities between President Bush and Adolf Hitler. My response: who doesn't?"
http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/richardmyers/CLTP

"Is The BushAdmin The Fourth Reich?"
http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/michaelcollins/CHSj

"the fascist NeoCon, Owens"
http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/waterflaws/CLyJ

"arch-fascist Peter Boyles"
http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/waterflaws/CqSN

"the republicans have become an inchoate fascist enemy."
http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/jencaltrideraction/C2VD

"What do you get when you put lipstick on a fascist?" (a Palin reference)
http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/group/FrontPage/www.thebell.org/pdf/OpNOTE06-1327?page=13

"is our school a microcosm of conservative fascism?"
http://media.progressnowaction.org/img/benson021808.pdf

Ari Armstrong, editor of FreeColorado.com, said, "Huttner has brought 'gotcha' politics to a new low. The organizers of public rallies, whether on the right or the left, cannot possibly keep out strangers. Indeed, Huttner himself complained that his free-speech rights were threatened when someone suggested that he leave the rally.

"I personally witnessed Michelle Malkin being approached by numerous individuals seeking photos with her, as is common with well-known personalities. Would Huttner appreciate it if a random stranger worked a photo op with a well-known leftist using inappropriate imagery or language?

"For Huttner to drag Penry into the debate is absurd. He had nothing to do with it. But, as Jason Salzman, who attended the rally with Huttner, acknowledged to me, he anticipates that Penry will run for higher office. So Huttner is starting in early with the character assassination.

"Obviously, people from the left call George W. Bush and other Republicans fascists or Nazis practically on a daily basis. Why is it news when the right does it, but not when the left does it?

"As Huttner's own web page demonstrates, the left commonly attacks Republicans and conservatives by likening them to fascists. Has Michael Huttner condemned each of those comments and apologized for them?"

Armstrong critically reviewed the rally in two articles at FreeColorado.com:
http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/pork-roast-mixes-liberty-populism-and.html
http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/stimulus-and-partisanship.html

This is not the first time that Huttner's own web page has featured the same comments for which he has condemned others. In 2008, Huttner condemned Caldara for using the term "bitch slap" on the radio, despite the fact that Huttner's web page also featured the phrase:
http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/progressnowactionorg-used-bitch-slap-in.html

Armstrong said, "Obama is obviously not a Nazi, so tagging him with a swastika is wrong. But we shouldn't blame people for the actions of complete strangers, and that goes for the right and the left. Huttner's hypocrisy is getting more than a little old."

Comment by Anonymous: Oh, Ari. You're seriously trying to equate anonymous blog comments with a guy who STOOD ON STAGE with your boss Jon Caldara, Michelle Malkin, and GOP leadership for an extended period with nobody having any problems? After your fellow rightie bloggers posted photos of the sign with positive comments? That takes some serious chutzpah. Your boss makes you take some pretty nutty longshots, of course, like blaming Colorado's budget crisis on "dildo art." So you're just staying classy, I get it. I love how Malkin has switched from "so what?" to "he was a plant!" in less than 48 hours, too. She's going to need to pick one.

Comment by Ari: I'm curious as to why Anonymous doesn't have the guts to leave a name. Nevertheless, I'm happy to reply. * Jon Caldara is not my boss, nor has he ever been my boss. Years ago I completed a project for him on an independent contractor basis. Now I occasionally contribute an op-ed to the Independence Institute as a guest writer—for no pay. * How much do the likes of Huttner get paid for character assassination of Republicans and conservatives? * Again, people at a public rally don't have the right to forcibly remove anybody, as Huttner himself was quick to point out. * There was no "stage;" there were the steps of the state capitol during a public rally. * You don't know whether any of the event's organizers had a problem with the sign. I was there, and the guy was standing off to one side, so I doubt that most of the speakers even saw the sign. It was a hectic rally with hundreds of participants and many scores of signs. * Again, how many leftist rallies have featured signs likening Bush to a Nazi? * I am not right wing, but if you want to criticize my "fellow rightie bloggers," please provide the links and the context, and then we'll talk. * Nobody blamed "Colorado's budget crisis on 'dildo art.'" If anybody cares to read what the relevant (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/10/IP_8_2005_d.pdf) paper actually says, have at it. * To my knowledge, nobody has provided any evidence that the rallier with the sign was a plant, and, absent such evidence, such claims should be ignored. * I didn't expect anything other than for the likes of the cowardly, dishonest, anonymous poster to suggest that there are two sets of rules, one for left-wingers and a different set for everybody else. * So is Huttner going to apologize for the remarks on his own web page doing the exact same thing that the guy with the sign was doing—i.e., calling his opponents fascists or Nazis?

'Personhood' Advances in North Dakoka

February 20, 2009

The AP (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/north-dakota-house-gives-fertilized-eggs-human-status/) reports (via Fox), "A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being..."

Those who thought the resounding defeat of a similar measure in Colorado would put an end to such nonsense were overly optimistic. Those driven by faith-based politics will keep pushing their agenda, no matter what, regardless or political or ideological failure.

As Diana Hsieh and I have (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) written, a fertilized egg is not a person. And nobody has every offered any sort of reasonable argument as to why it should be considered a person. But the bill in North Dakota is not about reason. It is about the alleged commandments of God.

Comment by Dan Dwyer: Well, in regards to saying their is no reason behind saying that a fertilized egg is a person I have to say the burden of proof actually is upon those who say it isn't. 1. One cannot name a single human person that was not at one point in the stage of being a fertilized egg. Thus, it is a necessary condition for a new person to be formed. 2. The potentiality of a fertilized egg is of an active type. That is to say a fertilized egg will become a newborn by natural processes that will only stop if impeded upon. Many things such as piles of lumber, an acorn or bags of unmixed cement have a passive potientiality to become say a house, tree and sidewalk respectively, however, there are many intermediary steps to fulfill that potential. An acorn does not become a tree unless it has been planted or plants itself and gets the necessary water and soil it needs. On the otherhand, the work is done in a fertilized egg that has implanted itself, it will only stop becoming a full grown human if artificial roadblocks(abortion, RU-486) or natural ones (miscarriage) are thrown down to stop it.
3. Thus, it is my argument that it is necessary to have a fertilized egg to have a person. And sufficient, by means of active potentiality to reach full term and birth and the nature of pregnancy being life sustaining without further action beyond impregnation, then it is by the very nature of a human person to begin at conception and that the fertilized egg stage, zygote stage, embryonic stage and everything up to birth of a child. Intrinsic in our nature as human persons is all these stages

Comment by Ari: 1. One cannot name a single human corpse that was not at one point in the stage of being a fertilized egg. Is a fertilized egg therefore a corpse? If you burn a log, you produce smoke. Is a log therefore smoke? 2. In fact, most fertilized eggs die by natural causes. A fertilized egg must be implanted in the uterus to grow into a newborn. A fertilized egg is a potential person. Granted. A potential is not an actual. 3. Fertilization is necessary but certainly not sufficient for the creation of a person. Again, you grant that a fertilized egg is a potential person. I linked to the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper I coauthored for a reason. If you can't be bothered to respond to the arguments there, you're simply not engaging the debate.

ColoradoPols.com Misreports 'Pork Roast Rally'

February 20, 2009

A February 19 (http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8909) entry at ColoradoPols.com, posted "by: Colorado Pols"—I don't know the poster's identity—misstates some facts and offers even more distortions. At issue is a February 17 rally organized by Jon Caldarda in protest of the so-called "stimulus" package. At that rally, a person unknown to Caldara and every other speaker showed up with a sign calling Obama a Nazi by putting a swastika with Obama's name. In its post, ColoradoPols.com lied about me and distorted my views, so I request a correction and a public apology.

ColoradoPols.com wrongly refers to "II [Independence Institute] blogger Ari Armstrong." I am not now, nor have I ever been, an "II blogger." FreeColorado.com is a completely independent entity that I have run for more than a decade. ColoradoPols.com is simply lying, unless it is operating on George Costanza's theory that "it's not a lie if you believe it." Regardless, ColoradoPols.com is playing fast and loose with the facts, and that's just bad reporting. (Years ago I worked on a single project for Caldara's Independence Institute as an independent contractor, and I continue to submit an occasional guest op-ed to the Institute, for no pay.)

Yesterday I issued a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/huttners-hypocrisy.html) media release pointing out that Progress Now Action, the organization of Michael Huttner attacking the rally's organizers, itself features numerous comments calling George W. Bush and other conservatives Nazis or fascists.

ColoradoPols.com claims "Ari Armstrong, unlike Malkin, isn't upset with the still-anonymous 'Swastika Guy.'" This ignorers the fact that I condemned the sign in my media release about Huttner. I said, "Obama is obviously not a Nazi, so tagging him with a swastika is wrong." In another (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/stimulus-and-partisanship.html) post I wrote that "the Nazis were particular sorts of fascists with a genocidal racist bent. Does that in any way describe Obama? No. ... So, again, dumb idea." ColoradoPols.com is willfully distorting my views.

It is outrageous for ColoradoPols.com to selectively quote my media release, ignore my condemnation of the sign within that media release, and then claim that I'm not "upset" over the sign. I request that ColoradoPols.com correct its post and offer a public apology.

ColoradoPols.com claims that "the examples cited by Armstrong consist of a bunch of anonymous comments and community blog posts from the general public." Some, but not all, of the examples are anonymous reader comments. To take the (http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/richardmyers/CLTP) first example, a "Post from Richard Myers's Blog" links Bush to Hitler. This is a primary post, not a reader's comment, and certainly not anonymous. The fact that it is a "community blog post" does not alter the fact of what it says or where it appears.

ColoradoPols.com also misrepresents the context of the sign. The post quotes Westword's Melanie Asmar, who wrote that the guy carrying the sign "stood right at the top of the steps during the protest. He was one of the first people I noticed as a reporter covering the event." Well, that says more about Asmar than it does about the rally. This was a public rally. As such, the event's organizers had absolutely no control over who attended. As Huttner himself (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/stimulus-and-partisanship.html) proclaimed, any effort to remove any participant would have been a violation of free-speech rights. Or does ColoradoPols.com endorse the policy of forcibly removing peaceful ralliers at a public venue?

As is obvious to anyone who has seen the state capitol, the west steps are quite broad. The guy with the sign stood at the side of the stairs—not that Caldara had any control over where the guy stood. (Some lady with an anti-immigration sign stood right behind Caldara during the rally, even though that had nothing to do with the theme of the day.) I actually have a photo of the west steps that includes the guy in question (I've drawn in an arrow):

ColordoPols.com can pretend that the guy was somehow the center of what was going on, but that's obviously nonsense.

But what about Malkin? ColoradoPols.com reproduces a photo with Malkin smiling for a photo-op with the guy and his sign. I grant that Malkin ought not have suggested the guy is some sort of "plant" without evidence. (I don't think he was a plant, but I don't know who he is.) Did Malkin do anything wrong? Again, it would be useful for the left to recall the goose-gander rule. Has anybody ever worked a photo op with a famous leftists using imagery or language the leftist disapproved of? I saw people hoarding Malkin. I don't know whether Malkin even saw the sign prior to the photo. But the guy approached Malkin from the side, and he pointed his sign forward, away from Malkin. I doubt very much that, at the time of the photograph, Malkin was aware of what was on the sign. ColoradoPols.com can joyously celebrate the photo if it wants, but it should remember that the next time a leftist is caught in a similarly embarrassing pose.

ColoradoPols.com notes that, when Malkin attacked the left for similar offenses, she was "not exactly what you'd call apologetic." Yet she condemned the sign, and that is the extent of her responsibility.

(By the way, while I agree with Malkin on many fiscal issues, I profoundly disagree with her on abortion and immigration, as I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/malkins-conundrum.html) wrote last year.)

ColoradoPols.com's conclusion is absurd:

Bottom line? There's a difference between a public blog where anybody can anonymously rant and a stage full of highly embarrassable public figures at an event you organize. And if that difference isn't stone-cold obvious to you, for the sake of those same embarrassable public figures you should really consider getting the hell out of the event organizing business.

True, there is a difference—the difference is that, while the organizers of a public rally cannot legally eject any peaceful rallier, Progress Now owns its own web page and thus can control its content. Again, unless ColoradoPols.com wishes to argue that peaceful ralliers should be forcibly thrown out of a public venue, it can't blame Caldara for the appearance of the guy with the sign.

It is unfortunate that ColoradoPols.com, Huttner, and many others have obsessed about a random rallier's sign, when there are so many more important issues to cover. In contrast with these leftists, I (who am neither right nor left, neither conservative nor "liberal") wrote two substantive articles criticizing various aspects of the rally (see the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/pork-roast-mixes-liberty-populism-and.html) first and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/stimulus-and-partisanship.html) second article). For example, I criticize Caldara for inviting Tom Tancredo, who ranted against immigration. I also point out the problem of partisans selectively supporting the "bailout" of their party man while condemning the "bailout" of the other party. I have responded to the ridiculous sign story only to the degree that the left has promoted it. Now I suggest that we get back to discussing real issues. Such as, was the "stimulus" a good idea? It so happens that there are some important things going on in the world, so perhaps we should talk about something that matters.

Comment by Himtngal: The sign behind Mr. Caldara was not an anti-immigration sign. It said E-Verify then D-Port Illegals. Anyone with an average IQ knows the difference between illegal immigration and those immigrants who are here legally. The opposition is against illegal aliens who have a direct impact on the STIMULUS PACKAGE. I think a retraction is in order. Have a nice day!

Comment by Katrina: Maybe if it were -possible- to immigrate legally, the sign could be valid and not anti-immigration, but it isn't. Unless you marry a citizen, it takes 7 to 25 years and tens of thousands of dollars to become a U.S. citizen, assuming you have relatives who are citizens and/or you are a professional like a doctor. No room for gardeners or strawberry pickers. The solution to the "burden" of immigrants (legal or otherwise) on the "stimulus" package is the same solution to all the other "burdens" on the system: end the welfare state. But the sign isn't protesting the stimulus, just who the money goes to. Thus it's completely fair to classify it as anti-immigration and definitely off-topic.

Religion and the Law

February 21, 2009

In response to a (http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_11725074) column by David Harsanyi in the Denver Post, letter writer Martin Voelker rightly (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/02/20/religion-and-atheism-not-a-private-affair/) points out that "churches aggressively push their arbitrary 'divine' rules into U.S. laws." How? Many religious people want to outlaw abortion, restrict or outlaw birth control, ban pornography (however defined) and limit naughty language, legally discriminate against homosexuals, etc.

After that Voelker gets off track. He claims that churches "reap billions of public dollars for their tax-exempt enterprises." But this confuses a subsidy with a tax break. If we're going to have non-profits for any sort of ideological advocacy, then the rules must be extended to religious groups. However, religious groups should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. (Ultimately, I think all groups should be "tax-exempt," which would eliminate problems associated with those rules.)

Voelker also quotes a line from an atheist ad: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." But the religious will shoot back that the likes of Hitler have misused science. Natural science is applied, specialized knowledge, and the proper application of science depends on a sound philosophical foundation.

However, Voelker does suggest that, in the broader sense, ethics can be a science; he writes that "we must negotiate what constitutes acceptable ethical behavior based on observations we can agree on." This is a little ambiguous; agreement does not demonstrate ethical behavior—the goal is to agree on what is true. For a start on that, I recommend such works as the recent (http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-Ethics-Virtuous/dp/0521705460) book by Tara Smith.

Comment by Bob King: One point germane to this: ordinary non-profits have to comply with quite stringent financial reporting requirements. A church, on the other hand, isn't even legally required to keep books. That makes it very attractive for people to subvert churches in order to further ideological agendas, because, well, they can use the church to launder the money. There are no limitations on the amount of money one can legally donate to a church, no need to account for what it's spent on, no need to keep records of who gave what amount, or even if they are a member of the church. Now, there are good reasons for all these privileges and immunities—but if a church is allowed to become a political entity, soon ALL churches will be so infected. Separation of Church and State is as much—or perhaps more—a protection of Church as it is of State.

Murder Is Not Honorable

February 23, 2009

Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494785,00.html) reports, "Muzzammil Hassan, 44, remains jailed after being charged with the second-degree murder of his wife, whose body was found Thursday at the office of Bridges TV, their television station in Orchard Park, near Buffalo."

The victim's head was cut off. The possible motive? "Aasiya Hassan filed for divorce on Feb. 6."

The deeper possible motive, of course, is a religious culture that tolerates and even encourages such barbarism. The "religion of peace" seems to have claimed another victim.

Around Colorado: 2/23/09

February 23, 2009

No Health Czar

Congratulations to Paul Hsieh, MD, for his (http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/America-doesnt-need-a-health-care-czar-40076027.html) article published today by the Washington, D.C., Examiner:

... The concept of a health czar follows naturally from the welfare statists' premise that government should guarantee health care to all Americans. Whenever the government attempts to guarantee universal medical care, it must also control its costs. Hence, someone must determine how health care dollars may be spent.

The Obama administration would control costs by creating a new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research to determine which treatments are deemed most effective and thus eligible to be paid for by government. These decisions would be based on statistical averages that cannot take into account specific facts of individual patients. ...

The fundamental problem with universal health care is the faulty premise that health care is a right. Health care is a need, not a right. Rights are freedoms of action (such as the right to free speech), not automatic claims on goods or services that must be produced by others. ... In socialized medical systems, health care is never truly a right, but just another privilege dispensed at the discretion of bureaucrats.

Hsieh goes on to summarize the free-market reforms that would bring down health-insurance costs while restoring (http://westandfirm.org/) freedom and individual rights in medicine.

The Food Stamp Bureaucracy

Another problem with (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) food stamps is that they are distributed by a clunky bureaucratic system. The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11763254) reports, "Thousands more people applying for food stamps mean wait times in 10 Colorado counties have pushed beyond 30 days, in violation of federal law."

True, on a free market, in which individuals voluntarily funded food banks and other programs and personal efforts to feed the poor, a recession would stress the system as needs rose. However, people cooperating voluntarily would tend to be faster and more caring in addressing such needs.

By the way, Boulder Weekly published my (http://www.boulderweekly.com/20090219/cuisine3.html) article on my "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet," and Westword published my (http://www.westword.com/2009-02-19/news/from-the-week-of-february-19) letter following up on that paper's story.

Go Slumdog

I was pleased that the Oscars recognized Slumdog Millionaire, a little film eminently (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/slumdog-millionaire.html) worthy of the recognition. I'm also pleased that Heath Ledger won.

Real Six Packs

Occasionally the Denver Post will actually editorialize in favor of liberty. The paper did so just yesterday, (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11744309) arguing that grocery stores should be allowed to sell regular beer. I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/good-beer-needs-no-political-force.html) said so myself. Unfortunately, the Post hardly makes a principled case, conceding the law "no longer makes sense." But violating individual rights never "makes sense;" it is always wrong.

Speaking of beer, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner has sensibly (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4819332n) argued that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. If you're old enough to fight wars and vote, you're certainly old enough to drink a beer. Such a move would also move at least some drinking from party houses to bars, which would improve safety. Of course, as one who was no stranger to binge drinking in my younger days, I realize that there is a deeper cultural problem here, but that problem is not being addressed by the discriminatory drinking age.

Follow Up on Pork Roast Rally

The left keeps unjustly beating up the organizers of the Pork Roast Rally, so I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/coloradopolscom-misreports-pork-roast.html) keep responding (though I doubt I'll need to say anything more about it). As I've pointed out, the same leftist organization blaming the rally's organizers for an unknown person's sign calling Obama a Nazi itself features comments on its web page calling Bush a Nazi.

Jon Caldara has (http://www.joncaldara.com/2009/02/scoreboard-ari-armstrong-2-tim-gill-hack-organization-0/) blogged about this, Face the State has (http://facethestate.com/articles/14324-armstrong-v-huttner-round-two-quit-swastika-hypocrisy) covered it, and Vincent Carroll has (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/20/carroll-holders-hot-air/) written about it:

[T]hanks to Ari Armstrong of freecolorado.com, there's one delicious postscript. It turns out—and this will surprise no one who has lived through the past eight years—that ProgressNow Colorado has a Web site whose blogs and reader comments have included a number of Nazi and fascist references to former President George W. Bush and other conservatives—which Armstrong has listed on his own blog.

What? The group can't be held responsible for every nutty leftist who comments on the site? Maybe not, but it exerts more control over them than the organizers of an open-air political rally have over their crowd.

The protest of the stimulus is growing. A blogger from Kansas (http://www.cauthon.com/2009/02/22/my-stimulus-protest-with-pictures/) writes about a rally in Overland Park:

The protest was held outside of the office of Representative Dennis Moore, who voted for the so-called "stimulus" bill. I almost didn't go to the protest out of concern that it would be more of an anti-Democrat, pro-Republican protest, but it wasn't that way. There were some people who were obvious Republicans, but most of those that I saw and talked to where people who were against the massive spending that the government is pushing. Though the temperature was 10 degrees with the wind chill, I think probably 300-400 people showed up, and there was a LOT of great response from drivers who saw us.

Keep it rolling, brothers.

Theory Versus Practice

February 24, 2009

One of my beefs with Christianity is that, because of its many unsound ethical tenets, it encourages members to voice one set of principles and act on another. Here is a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/17/bristol-palin-says-abstinence-not-realistic-all/) great example:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter, an unwed mother, says teenagers should avoid having sex.

However, Bristol Palin acknowledges that abstinence is "not realistic at all."

Now, I don't think younger teens have any business having sex (with others), and I look to parental responsibility to address the matter. But of course Christians say that all sex before marriage is wrong, an unjustifiable position. And so we get people like Bristol Palin spouting Christian doctrine while acknowledging its inapplicability to a well-led life. Perhaps if Bristol hadn't been torn between her theory and her practice, she might have been more conscientious about birth control.

Comment by Harold: You know, when I first heard this, I was like, "Wow, that's quite an admission." I wouldn't expect this type of statement from that quarter. Well, I guess she learned the hard way. It's too bad.

9News Covers 'Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet'

February 24, 2009

From February 4-10 I went on the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet," during which I ate nutritiously for around $4 per day, after subtracting the estimated value of the leftover food. Tonight, after interviewing me on February 18, 9News (Denver's NBC station) broadcast a (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=110361&catid=188) story about it.

It's a (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=110361&catid=188) great story, and obviously I'm thrilled with it. I do want to expand on a couple of points, however.

In the text version of the story, Shawn Patrick, the reporter, makes the potentially confusing claim that "even Armstrong admits it was an extreme low-carbohydrate diet." The whole point of the diet was to be low-carb. I was trying to cut carbs. I estimate I was eating between 100 and 150 grams of carbs per day, whereas the USDA recommends around 300.

To counter the claim that those on a tight budget can only afford carbs, starch, and bad fat, I spent the week eating a diet totally free of grains, potatoes, hydrogenated fat, and vegetable oils. Obviously, a low-carb diet must make up calories through increased proteins or fats. Part of the argument behind (at least some) low-carb diets is that eating a little more fat is not a problem, health-wise. However, some argue that vegetable fats—canola oil, especially hydrogenated fats, etc.—aren't really that great for you. So I ate fat only from olive oil, meat, dairy, eggs, and nuts (and trace amounts in produce and chocolate). (Usually I also eat coconut fat.)

A diet higher in carbs is less expensive, if those carbs take the form of low-cost flour, rice, oats, and potatoes. Obviously things like soda, sugary cereal, and frozen pizzas can cost a lot more and dramatically increase carb loads. The primary reason my wife and I were able to spend a month in 2007 each eating for only $2.57 per day is that we ate a diet higher in carbs.

If I were on a true emergency budget, I'd pick a diet combining elements of the 2007 diet and the low-carb one. I'd buy healthy but low-cost fruits and vegetables, meat, dairy, eggs, and olive oil along with low-cost grains like brown rice and oats. I think that would be the best balance between good nutrition and low cost, and it's close to the diet I eat normally.

Nutritionist Dr. Carolyn Ross was somewhat complimentary of the diet, yet she worried that I wasn't meeting my calorie loads. But I estimated my daily calorie intake, and it was within USDA guidelines. Remember, I ate an entire turkey by myself in a week. I boiled the scraps to make soup stock. (Patrick suggested that I bought soup; I made soup from my purchased supplies.) I ate olive oil, which carries 130 calories per tablespoon. I drank whole milk and ate whipped cream on bananas. I ate grapefruit. I ate eggs. I added a few walnuts for the Omega 3 fats. Even though I cut carbs, I still got carbs especially in my fruit, and I made up calories in protein and fat. We can continue to debate the optimal calorie split, but, according to the low-carb assumptions, I did very well.

The broadcast story shows me dicing an onion. Perhaps viewers will be interested in what I made out of that. (This was on February 18, after my week's diet had ended.) I added olive oil, various diced vegetables, pureed peppers and spinach, diced chicken, quinoa (a grain known for its protein), and various spices, including curry. I made enough of it for several meals for both my wife and me, demonstrating that cooking need not consume a great deal of time per meal. The results were inexpensive, delicious, and healthy:

Comment by Tony: A good story with a good arguement, and proof in the pudding. I've come back to this one a few times to prove a point. The shrill objection to the idea that you have to be rich to eat well fades in the face of fact.

Duty to Breed

February 25, 2009

Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/renfroe-should-resign-over-bigoted.html) said that God "created men and women, male and female, for procreation." For good measure, he added that homosexuality is an "abomination" and a sin "equal" to murder.

A (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/24/altering-traditional-marriage-dangerous/) letter by L. E. Bell in today's Rocky Mountain News expresses a similar sentiment on the procreation point: "By simply observing the marvelous and complex design of a man and a woman, it is obvious that the Creator (God) intentionally designed a man and a woman (exclusively) to be married, and to produce offspring."

The argument implies a religious duty to breed. It is behind the Catholic ban on birth control, the Mormon directive to bear as many children as possible, and the Protestant (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/11/real-meaning-of-pro-family.html) "Quiverfull" movement.

But, while raising children is an important part of many marriages, it is not a necessary part of marriage. Many heterosexual couples choose not to have children or cannot have them. They enjoy marriage for the romantic love, the partnership, the mutual respect, and the physical intimacy. Marriages that do not bear children are not, contrary to the suggestion of Renfroe and Bell, somehow of second-class or diminished status. Likewise, homosexuals can partner to enjoy the same fruits.

Moreover, while homosexual couples cannot get pregnant on their own, women can get pregnant using outside sperm, while men can adopt children (though I'm not sure how this works under modern American and Colorado law). So homosexual couples can raise children. (Is a homosexual couple that raises children superior to a heterosexual couple that does not, according to Renfroe and Bell?)

There is no good reason to claim that married couples have a duty to breed or that their marriage is justified by breeding. There is no good reason to claim that homosexuality is morally wrong (never mind a sin comparable to murder). There is no reason—there is only religious faith based on an ancient book of mythology.

Renfroe Should Resign Over Bigoted Remarks

February 25, 2009

In a just world, State Senator Scott Renfroe's constituents would rise up and throw the bum out of office. If he had a lick of sense, he would resign. Of course, if he had a lick of sense, he wouldn't have called homosexuality an abomination and a sin comparable to murder on the Senate floor in a blatant attack on church-state boundaries.

I have seen no sign of Renfroe's repentance, however, and so I call on the Republican Party of Colorado to publicly condemn Renfroe's remarks. It's the right thing to do, and it's also the prudent political move, if the GOP wishes to be taken seriously as a political force in Colorado.

At issue is a "bill to allow gay and lesbian state employees to share health benefits with their partners," (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11767374) reports the Denver Post. Here I do not wish to discuss the arguments for and against the bill, but only to condemn Renfroe's tirade against it.

Mike Littwin has (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/24/littwin-talk-gay-rights-wild-bash/) written about the sorry affair for the Rocky Mountain News. And my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/huttners-hypocrisy.html) good friends over at Progress Now Colorado, having actually discovered a wolf this time, have posted the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw) entire speech on YouTube. Following is the complete transcript:

Transcript of State Senator Scott Renfroe's Speech to the Senate on February 23, 2009

Thank you madame chair. Members, I also come down here to oppose this bill. Look at some of the declarations in the bill, some of those arguments used here to do this, I guess.

Number One, is that there are employers that offer this are at a competitive advantage over those employers that do not offer such benefits. And, number one, employers, that's the private sector, and I believe in that choice, and the private sector should be allowed to do that. And businesses should have that opportunity to choose how they run their business and what they want to do.

The state, on the other hand, we are here to represent the people of Colorado, and do the state's business. And like Senator Brophy said, the state did actually speak almost directly to this issue two years ago, and the last three years we've had bills that contradict what the people of the state of Colorado voted on directly in 2006. So with that, I think that part of the declaration should be considered, in that what the will of the people was.

And, for me personally, I guess I oppose this bill because of what the vote of the people was. And then I also oppose this bill because of what my personal beliefs are. And I think that what our country was founded upon was those beliefs also.

You know, in the beginning, God created our Earth, and the structure for creation, when you have God, you have the Son, and then you have the Holy Spirit, you have that trinity. You also have that same trinity, which is in my opinion a mimic over to what we have within the family. You have the father, the husband, you have the wife, and then you have the children. And I think when you look at that scenario, that is what we were created for. And I think that's what the Bible says.

Through the whole beginning of Creation, it talks about how things were created, and that it was good, it was good, it was good. It says over and over, that it was good. Then we get to verse 18 in Genesis 2, "The Lord God said it is not good for man to be alone. And so he made him a helper, suitable for him. And that was woman."

And then if you go on, and talk about that, God blessed them and said, "Then be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea, over the birds, over the sky, over every living thing that moves on the earth."

And then in Genesis 9 he said to Noah again, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." And I think that that goes back to this whole picture of family, which God created us for. And we need to honor that.

Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural, created order. And it is in a sense to God, the creator, who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.

Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a female. It is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as though to lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, and they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

Then Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

And that's what we're doing here. We're suppressing the truth. The truth is what the family was created for in the beginning. That is the a husband, a wife, and children. And that is why we are here, and this goes against that. And this is just a continuation of the traction of the family.

And I say all that to back up my beliefs in where we're going with this. I believe government is here, we are here, to create the laws of our land, and when we create laws that goes against what Biblically we are supposed to stand for, I think we are agreeing or allowing to go forward a sin which should not be treated by government as something that is legal.

And that is what we are going to do with this, and what we've done in the past. We are taking sins and making them to be legally okay, and that is wrong. That is an abomination, according to scripture.

And I'm not saying that this is the only sin that's out there. Obviously we have sin, we have murder, we have all sorts of sin. We have adultery, and we don't making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal.

But what I'm saying that for, is all sin is equal. That sin there is as equal to any other sin that's in the Bible, to having wandering eyes, to coveting your neighbor's things. Whatever you do, that sin is equal, and it can be forgiven because of that.

So with that, I think I need to go back and say that I stand in my belief, that this is wrong, and we should not condone it as a government. And I think the verses that I quoted you in Leviticus back that up in a strong way, and I'd ask you to vote no on this bill.

Renfroe here explicitly calls for the laws of Colorado to be based on Old Testament scripture. This, obviously, violates the separation of church and state. The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not enforce religious dogma, whether or not the majority agrees with it. Murder and theft are properly illegal because they violate individual rights. Homosexuality between consenting adults does not. Moreover, many Coloradans reject Renfroe's religious views or his particular interpretation of Christianity.

For Renfroe to quote a religious text calling for the murder of homosexuals is outrageous, and it is wrong. It is no more appropriate than if a member of some other religion took the floor and read different texts calling for murder.

By Renfroe's account, the divine purpose of marriage is procreation. Never mind the fact that many heterosexual couples choose not to have children or cannot have them. Are their marriages similarly tainted in Renfroe's account?

Renfroe's claim that the 2006 election had anything to do with the bill at hand is nonsense. That year, voters (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/CO/2006-11-07-ballot-issues_x.htm) banned gay marriage and voted against domestic partnerships. I think the majority was wrong on both counts, but that has no direct connection to extending benefits to the partners of state employees.

Renfroe's tirade illustrates why the Republicans are the minority party in Colorado. In attempting to impose their religious doctrines by force of law, such Republicans undermine individual rights and alienate mainstream voters.

Again I call on the Republican Party of Colorado to publicly condemn Renfroe's remarks. Whether the party does so will say a great deal about whether the party wishes to win competitive elections here again. And, more importantly, whether it deserves to win.

Comment by Anonymous: A state senator in blood-red Utah was only guilty of saying gays were the biggest threat to America, and he lost his committee assignments. If the Colorado GOP has any soul at all it will rebuke this guy as quickly and harshly as they rightly did to Doug "the kicker" Bruce. My prediction: They will line up to support Renfroe.

Comment by Anonymous: I agree that his comments were...ignorant for lack of a better word. The state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Let private and religious institutions fill that role. The less government involvement in people's lives, the better. The state shouldn't be deciding any matter related to sex, religion, race, etc. chuck@coloradofreedom.net

Comment by Bob King: Thank God; a genuine Conservative. There may yet be hope for the Republic. Keep blogging and seek wider attention. Conservative does not equal Stupid—but of late, "Electable Republican" seems to. I'm old enough to recall when Barry Goldwater was considered to be as far right as you could go without falling off the edge of the political firmament—and when the scary smart people were mostly Conservatives of one sort or another. For sure, all the pinheads of this variety were Democrats. Southern Democrats. I find the inability of the Republican party to come up with either a credible positive agenda or even manage a respectable job in opposition to be personally extremely distressing. For politics without some balance—that's double-plus ungood! Keepin' a hopeful eye on you...

Colorado GOP Self-Destructs

February 26, 2009

It was just Monday (February 23) that Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe, on the Senate floor, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/renfroe-should-resign-over-bigoted.html) quoted scripture that demands the death penalty for homosexuality, called homosexuality an abomination, and said it is equal to the sin of murder in God's eyes.

Today (Wednesday, February 25), Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis argued against a bill encouraging pregnant women to get tested for HIV on the grounds that the bill would "remove the consequences" of "sexual promiscuity."

These two cases illustrate the fundamental problem with Colorado politics. The Republican Party is, to a large degree, the Party of God, complete with Bible readings on the Senate floor. Such Republicans declare homosexuality a sin, attempt to completely ban abortion, and generally try to promote their religious faith by force of law. The Democrats, on the other hand, want to expand political control of the economy. Because the Democrats are the less crazy of the two, they win by default. (Ayn Rand's 1973 (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservativesvsliberals.html) essay anticipates the state of modern Colorado politics.)

I am still waiting for the (http://www.cologop.org/ContactUs.aspx) Colorado Republican Party to condemn Renfroe's remarks. Now the party needs to condemn the remarks of Schultheis as well.

Schultheis's Statements

I have not been able to find a complete recording or transcript of Schultheis's statements. The most complete remarks I've found (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/25/words-and-controversy-senate-republicans/) come from the Rocky Mountain News.

During the Senate debate, Schultheis said, "This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part and I just can't go there. We do things continually to remove the consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly. Sexual promiscuity we know causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which obviously is the contraction of HIV."

Later, he told the Rocky:

What I'm hoping is that yes, that person may have AIDS, have it seriously as a baby and when they grow up, but the mother will begin to feel guilt as a result of that.

The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity and it may make a number of people over the coming years begin to realize that there are negative consequences and maybe they should adjust their behavior.

We can't keep people from being raped. We can't keep people from shooting each other. We can't keep people from jumping off bridges. There are a lot of things we can't do that have negative consequences in our society. People drink and drive and they crash and kill people. Poor behavior has its consequences.

HIV is spread by blood transmission, and sex (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2007report/table1.htm) is the primary means of that. Schultheis conflates "promiscuous sex" with sex at high risk of transmitting HIV, though of course most premarital sex is at low risk of HIV infection. Moreover, some monogamous women get HIV from their partners.

Schultheis is arguing that an HIV-infected baby constitutes punishment for women who get HIV through promiscuous sex. Schultheis does not wish to "remove the consequences" for such sex. The notion that any woman should be so punished is grotesque. But what about the infant? Isn't the HIV-positive infant the one being punished the most?

David Harsanyi is (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2009/02/25/republicans-time-to-exorcize-the-crazies/) on target in his critique of Schultheis:

The Republican Party, no matter how many fresh or smart ideas it may have, isn't going to get anywhere in this state—or nationally—if it continues to spew the hateful gibberish we've heard from Scott Renfroe and Dave Schultheis the past couple of days. ...

Are these [remarks of Schultheis] the words of a person who should be representing anyone?

The Republican Party has to get rid of these people, pronto. They aren't conservatives; they're nihilists. Can anyone imagine a Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater claiming that a child should live with AIDS to teach the mother a lesson? (If that is what Schultheis meant. And I still hold out a slim amount of hope that this was a matter of incoherence.)

If Schultheis apologizes for his remarks and explains that he really believes something else, we can follow up on Harsayni's slim hopes. As of 11:38 p.m. on February 25, Schultheis has (http://www.daveschultheis.com/NEWS/PressReleases/Index.html) not issued a media release on the matter.

Schultheis: Bad for Liberty

Schultheis has a track record of assaulting our liberties. He has tried to (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/waiting-periods-for-abortions.html) restrict the right to get an abortion. He (http://www.daveschultheis.com/LEGISLATIVE/ElectionResultsforColorado/Index.html) endorsed the 2008 measure that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person, laying the groundwork for banning abortion. He (http://www.daveschultheis.com/ISSUES/StemCellResearch/Index.html) opposes embryonic stem-cell research.

Schultheis (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/pork-roast-mixes-liberty-populism-and.html) wants for forcibly prohibit employers from hiring workers by mutual consent, on protectionist grounds.

Schultheis is fiscally conservative, but often he is antagonistic toward free markets and individual rights.

Renfroe's Sorry Appeal

Meanwhile, Renfroe (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/25/words-and-controversy-senate-republicans/) said in defense of his comments: "Our First Amendment allows freedom of speech and I should be allowed to say what I want on any issue." He sounds remarkably like Ward Churchill.

Renfroe's invocation of the First Amendment is off point, because nobody is threatening his First Amendment rights. At issue is not what Renfroe has a right to say as a private citizen; everybody agrees he has every legal right to his bigotry. The point is that what he said is wrong, the fact that he said it as a state senator on the senate floor undermines the separation of church and state, and his critics also have a First Amendment right to condemn his statements and call for his resignation.

The Republican Party of Colorado is at a cross-roads. It can shake off the leash of the religious right, or it can remain the justly ridiculed minority party.

Comment by Anonymous: I thought you might be interested in this: Controversial, Award-Winning New Documentary Courting Condi to Screen at University of Denver this Monday
Q&A with Director Sebastian Doggart and a Debate Between DU Professor Alan Gilbert and Colorado State Senator Shawn Mitchell (R-23rd) to Follow Screening
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009
Time: 6:30 p.m.—9:00 p.m.
Place: Davis Auditorium, Sturm Hall
University of Denver, 2000 E. Asbury Avenue
Denver, CO 80210
This Monday, March 2nd at the University of Denver, the nonprofit Campus Progress and student-run newspaper [dis]claimer will host a screening of Courting Condi, a docu-tragi-comedy that follows a love-struck man's hilarious, emotionally engaging, and ultimately shocking quest to woo DU alumna and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Following the screening there will be Q&A with Director Sebastian Doggart and a debate between DU Professor Alan Gilbert and Colorado State Senator Shawn Mitchell (R-23rd) on the topic "should Condoleezza Rice stand trial for war crimes." The event is free and open to the public.

HIV Testing Opens Door to Abortion Restrictions

February 26, 2009

Senate Bill 179 would require pregnant women to be tested for HIV or opt out.

The fact that State Senator David Schultheis's (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/colorado-gop-self-destructs.html) case against the bill is shameful and ludicrous does not imply that the bill is a good idea. In fact the bill represents an illegitimate use of state power to interfere in private medical decisions. It violates freedom of contract and private property. Moreover, the bill creates a dangerous precedent that could be further abused by those with more insidious agendas.

David Harsanyi (http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2009/02/25/republicans-time-to-exorcize-the-crazies/) writes:

I suppose, it's possible to oppose a bill mandating HIV testing for pregnant women if you believe it's a gratuitous coercion of the individual. But I can absolutely appreciate the argument that the state has a responsibility to protect children from the negligent behavior (and contracting HIV isn't always a matter of reckless behavior) of adults. And since the bill features an op-out clause, I don't see it as particularly worrisome.

I'm surprised that Harsanyi, a critic of the Nanny State, doesn't take the "gratuitous coercion" of the bill more seriously.

Here's what 179 actually says in modifying Statute 25-4-201, which already requires pregnant women to be tested for syphilis:

Every licensed health care provider authorized to provide care to a pregnant woman in this state for conditions relating to her pregnancy during the period of gestation or at delivery shall take or cause to be taken a sample of blood of the woman at the time of the first professional visit or during the first trimester for testing pursuant to this section. The blood specimen thus obtained shall be submitted to an approved laboratory for a standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. Every other person permitted by law to attend pregnant women in this state but not permitted by law to take blood samples shall cause a sample of blood of each pregnant woman to be taken by a licensed health care provider authorized to take blood samples and shall have the sample submitted to an approved laboratory for a standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. A pregnant woman may decline to be tested as specified in this subsection (1), in which case the licensed health care provider shall document that fact in her medical record.

Having the opt-out clause is much better than not having one. However, it's still a bad bill.

The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, including the right to contract voluntarily. This bill instead violates the right of contract by placing political requirements on what should be a decision between doctors (and other care providers) and their patients.

Women know in advance whether they are at risk of HIV. My wife is at zero risk of HIV infection. To "encourage" her to get tested for HIV is ludicrous and insulting, insofar as legislators attempt to replace her judgment with their own.

Moreover, this is largely a solution in search of a problem. A Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/25/denver-doctor-supports-hiv-testing-all-pregnant-wo/) article begins, "The head of Denver's HIV prevention program said Wednesday he doesn't recall the last time an HIV-positive baby was born here."

Paul Hsieh (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-regulatory-chief-believes-in-paternalistic-government/) addresses the "nudge"-like opt-out allowance:

The basic premise of libertarian paternalism is that the government should use its power to "nudge" people into acting in their best interest, while leaving them the choice to "opt out."

However, nudging represents an assault on freedom, because it undermines man's basic tool of survival—his mind. By creating a default, libertarian paternalism in essence says, "Don't worry—we'll do your thinking for you." Sunstein's book explicitly compares Americans to a bunch of Homer Simpsons in need of such guidance. If Americans surrender their minds to the government, they become easy prey for demagogues and dictators.

Once we concede the legitimacy of "nudging," nudges will inevitably escalate. Over time, libertarian paternalism will become less "libertarian" and more "paternalistic."

Once it is accepted that the state legislature should be in the business of telling my wife (and all other women who may become pregnant) to get an HIV test, it is only a matter of time before a future legislator decides that the opt-out clause is useless.

In recent years, Republicans opposed to abortion have been most interested in politically managing pregnancy care, as by (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/waiting-periods-for-abortions.html) trying to require ultrasounds prior to an abortion. Former Governor Bill Owens (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/25/gop-lawmakers-comments-hiv-promiscuity-cause-uproa/) criticized Schultheis on the following grounds: "It's extremely inconsistent for any person who is pro-life to oppose this effort to potentially save the life of a child."

If the state legislature "encourages" women to be tested for HIV, for the purported sake of the fetus, legislators open the door to future efforts to politically control medicine to restrict abortions.

Leftists who endorse 179 while wanting to keep abortion legal are incapable of thinking in principle or seeing more than a few months down the legislative road.

Comment by Amesh: While I agree with you that state mandates for HIV testing are wrong and a violation of rights, I do believe that opt-out testing--as a hospital policy--has a lot of merit. As a physician specializing in Infectious Diseases I care for many HIV patients and while, as you say, most people know when they are at risk for HIV, some do not. At least 25% of those infected with HIV are unaware of their status and are capable of spreading the infection to others. Mother to child transmission of HIV is an event that should *never* occur (because of anti-retroviral therapy) in a 1st world country and having pregnant women tested (as part of the standard consent form, which already includes testing for other sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis and Hepatitis B) is the best means to do so.

Controlling Women for 'Unborn Children'

March 2, 2009

For the sake of "unborn children," a proposed statute in Tennessee would force many pregnant women to undergo drug and alcohol testing. MamaPundit (http://mamapundit.com/2009/02/my-blood-it-boils/) summarizes, "So if this law is enacted, it means that any woman who suffers a miscarriage, stillbirth, or other serious pregnancy complications, or who gives birth to a disabled child, will face state-mandated drug testing."

Particularly given the fact that most fertilized eggs naturally abort, this opens the door wide for the government to control women's bodies.

This is hardly the first such Nanny State proposal. Here in Colorado, Democrats are (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/hiv-testing-opens-door-to-abortion.html) trying to politically encourage HIV testing for pregnant women, despite the fact that women and their doctors already know the risk factors and are free to test.

Republicans have also (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/waiting-periods-for-abortions.html) tried to force women to get ultrasound information and delay getting an abortion.

From the Democratic side, this is just about Nanny Statism—forcing women to do what politicians think is good for them. For many Republicans, politically controlling pregnancy is a wedge to eventually treat the fetus, all the way back to a fertilized egg, as a person under the law, with equal legal protections as born infants. (Democrats would do well to consider what will happen under their Nanny State provisions in the hands of the religious right.)

A born infant is a person with rights that must be protected by government. Until then, the government must respect the rights of the woman to control her own body.

Political Controls Provoke Producers to Go On Strike

March 2, 2009

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090302/COLUMNISTS/903019995/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Political%20controls%20provoke%20producers%20to%20go%20on%20strike) was published March 2, 2009, by the Grand Junction Free Press.

Political controls provoke producers to go on strike

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The economy has recovered from every recession so far, so it's a good bet that, eventually, the economy will recover from the current recession as well. We can be sure that, so long as the recession lasts, Barack Obama will blame outside forces, and as soon as the recession has ended Obama will take the credit.

Assuming the economy starts growing again, it will do so in spite of, not because of, Obama's new forced wealth transfers and political controls of the economy. The controls of Obama, the Congress, and the state legislature, on top of earlier controls promoted by both political parties, threaten economic prosperity.

Such controls violate the rights of producers—of doctors, engineers, programmers, builders—to set their own destiny, control their own business and property, and interact with others on a voluntary basis. Political controls subject producers to the whims of bureaucrats.

Controls also forcibly transfer wealth from some people to others, thereby reducing the incentive to produce wealth. Around (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx) 40 percent of each new dollar earned goes to taxes. The deficit spending of Obama and George W. Bush threatens to impose the hidden tax of inflation.

When producers face the twin threat of bureaucratic meddling and confiscation of the fruits of their labor, many throw up their hands and either quit producing or cut back. They go on strike, in part or in full, loudly or quietly.

We have talked with countless friends who have decided to invest less or work less. Many would rather work on the house or the car, where at least their labor is not taxed, than spend more time in their chosen field where they are largely directed by bureaucrats and forced to hand over much of their earnings to others.

We have heard of doctors leaving medicine or certain specialties to avoid the associated bureaucratic nightmares.

We have heard of entrepreneurs who would rather sell their dreams to safe corporations than risk opening a new business under the regulatory nightmare of Sarbanes-Oxley and other controls.

We have heard the outrage of working-class families, who are struggling to make their ends meet even as they are forced to subsidize the irresponsible, such as the woman in California who added octuplets to her six prior children. We hear, "Why am I working so hard?"

This idea of a strike of producers is hardly new. In 1937, Harold Ickes, FDR's Secretary of the Interior, "gave a radio speech assailing America's wealthy, charging that sixty families who ran the nation were on strike against the rest of the country," writes Amity Shlaes in The Forgotten Man.

The next year, Wendell Willkie fired back at a similar claim made by Assistant Attorney General Robert Jackson. Willkie said, "Mr. Jackson has previously spoken of a 'strike of capital' against the government. If there is any strike of capital it comes from these millions of small investors, not from the wealthy few... The main problem is to restore the confidence of investors in American business, and to do this will require more than pleasant speaking on the part of government. For several years the government has taken definite action to show its hostility to business." [See This Is Wendell Willkie (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1940), p. 70.]

Ayn Rand, who lived through both the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression, made the idea of the productive strike the theme of her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged. For many years the working title was "The Strike." Rand described the theme as "what happens to the world when the Prime Movers go on strike."

Rand wrote of her "fantastic premise," a "hypothetical case" in which the world's top producers disappear, one by one. (Much of the drama takes place in a fictional valley near Ouray.) But the truth behind Rand's literary device remains: political economic controls discourage the producers from creating the wealth necessary for our lives.

Today the fantastic pushes through reality. In a touching YouTube video called (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EF77zJYHFg&feature=channel_page) "My Strike," a man begins his address by quoting Atlas Shrugged. He explains how friends of his have left their fields. He says, "Now I'm on strike... I woke up one morning and could not think of a single reason to come to work... We live in a time when billions of dollars of market capitalization can be wiped out by a single political speech, statutory command, or regulatory decree. And those politicians consume our lives as much as our dollars."

It's no wonder that sales of Atlas Shrugged have tripled over the same period last year, (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22647) reports the Ayn Rand Institute.

Perhaps it's time for you to fold up this paper, roll up your sleeves, and get back to work. Because that's what we always do, right? We go back to work, no matter what the politicians do to us or how much they take from us. Until they cross that line and we the producers say, "No more."

Faith-Based Initiatives Promote Religion

March 3, 2009

Tax funded "faith-based initiatives," popularized by George W. Bush and expanded by Barack Obama, promote religion. If this point is not sufficiently obvious, a (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/03/02/faith-based-hope/) letter in today's Denver Post brags about that fact:

As the Salvation Army understands, Jesus Christ really does free people from the shackles of addiction. Christ-centered, prayer-based addiction treatment is overwhelmingly more successful than any other addiction treatment program. And the same goes for reducing rates of prison recidivism.

I suspect President Barack Obama understands this, due to his willingness to continue federally funded, faith-based initiatives. And former President George W. Bush certainly understands this fact. Christ-centered, faith-based initiatives were found to be very successful in reducing recidivism in the Texas prison system during Mr. Bush's tenure there as governor.

I don't wish to address the specific claims of effectiveness, other than to mention that I don't take them at face value. The key point is that Americans who aren't Christians—or who are Christians but who oppose such tax spending—are forced to pay for "prayer-based," "Christ-centered," "faith-based" programs, in violation of their rights of property and conscience. The "faith-based initiatives" are grotesquely immoral. And they violate the First Amendment.

New Mac

March 3, 2009

Our G5 Mac lost its logic board over the weekend. Rather than pay to get it replaced, we decided to upgrade to stay current with the software. (As a graphic designer, my wife primarily uses Adobe products contained in that company's Creative Suite.)

Obviously it's no fun to go through a computer melt-down. I lost a couple days of time, then we had to buy a new machine. However, after the experience I'm a more loyal Mac user. The local Apple store diagnosed my machine at no cost, ruling out the hard drive and RAM as the problem. Then staff of the store answered extensive questions about the machines currently available, and we selected one that I think will fit our needs spectacularly. (We got an iMac, which is only slightly less beefy than our old machine at a considerably lower cost.) By the way, it's possible that a cause of the problem was dust in the machine that inhibited air flow. The old Motorola machines have a reputation for running hot—which is primarily why Apple switched to Intel—so if you have a Motorola tower I suggest you get it cleaned.

An Apple machine will cost you more than a comparable PC, but that's comparing apples to oranges (or lemons). With a Mac, you get a machine that works with fewer hassles, and you get real customer service.

I almost wish I'd saved all my old machines, just so we could show the next generation the rapid progress. My first computer was a Commodore 128, as in 128 kilobytes of RAM, double the memory of the popular 64. (The first Apple I used in school ran on a cassette tape drive.) The new machine has four gigabytes of RAM, or over 31,000 times the memory. It's such an obvious point that we rarely savor it: the computer revolution has improved our lives dramatically in countless ways. So, thanks, Steve and the gang.

Comment by Dave Barnes: Ari, I hope you know about The Mac Outlet on South Broadway which buy/sells used Macs.
http://www.themacoutlet.com/ We buy AppleCare (at less than list price from LAComputerCompany.com) for all our Macs. We then sell them at the 2.5 year point for a very good to The Mac Outlet. Have fun with you new iMac. Also, you have the right to return the one you just bought and get one of the new ones announced yesterday. ,dave

Stop Forfeiture Abuse

March 3, 2009

It's just wrong if the police can take your property when you have not been convicted of any crime, especially if the police can spend the money on themselves.

That's why, in 2002, a broad coalition passed Bill 1404 to reform asset forfeiture. You can read all about it in my series of articles:

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/04/1404.html) Forfeiture Reform Bill Delayed
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/04/1404april11.html) Asset Forfeiture Reform Passes First Vote
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/04/1404april16.html) Asset Forfeiture Reform Advances
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/04/1404april25.html) 1404 Passes Senate Committee
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2002/06/shorts12.html) 1404 Set to Become Law

Unfortunately, a new bill—sponsored by Democrats, no less, who belong to a party supposed to care about civil liberties—threatens to undo the 2002 reforms.

The Colorado Springs Gazette (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/bill_49055___article.html/colorado_house.html) editorializes:

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee will consider Thursday what has to be the most outrageous bill proposed in this session of the Colorado General Assembly, and perhaps in the last several years. House Bill 1238 would more than undo a law that received widespread bipartisan support in 2002, which prevents law enforcement from keeping the assets and proceeds from forfeitures, even when a suspect has been acquitted in court.

Loose translation: The new bill would allow law enforcement to take your home, your car, and your grandmother's jewelry on the mere suspicion you committed a crime, and they could keep it regardless of an acquittal by a jury of your peers or a dismissal of the criminal case by prosecutors. It's a bill that says, in essence, you're guilty if accused.

Writing for the Independence Institute, Mike Krause (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1628) summarizes the bill as "an invitation to misgovernment." (Unfortunately, as Krause (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1594) pointed out last month, "In 2007, the Democrat controlled legislature (with plenty of Republican support) approved HB 1275 which designates the Colorado National Guard as a law enforcement agency for the purpose of 'sharing in the federal asset forfeiture program' as part of the Guard's counter drug operation in Colorado. ... [The bill] blurs what should be a clear line between soldier and cop, sets a hugely dangerous precedent of military involvement in civilian law enforcement and increases the federal government's influence into the practices and priorities of state and local agencies and takes the disastrous war on drugs to a new level in Colorado.")

The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition—a leader in the 2002 reforms—also issued an (http://thinkoutsidethecage2.blogspot.com/2009/03/action-alert-asset-forfeiture.html) action alert:

WHAT HB 09-1238 WOULD DO:

1. Erodes reasonable protections for property owners by
a. repealing the requirement that someone be convicted of a criminal offense before their property can be forfeited. (in a civil forfeiture action, a property owner does not have 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination nor the right to counsel)
b. allowing for forfeiture even if the owner didn't know that the property was used in violation of the law under the theory that he/she "reasonably should have known."
c. repealing the requirement that the plaintiff prove that the property being forfeited was instrumental in the commission of an offense.

2. Reintroduces the profit motive to law enforcement and no longer requires forfeiture proceeds to be allocated through an accountable budgeting entity (like City Council or County Commissions) but rather allows law enforcement and prosecutors to keep a majority of the proceeds directly.

3. Removes any transparency and accountability by repealing all forfeiture reporting requirements and repeals the prohibition on transfer of forfeiture cases out of state court when local or state law enforcement were the seizing agency, with limited exceptions. ...

Current law ensures that forfeiture actions are fair and that property owners have due process without undermining law enforcement's ability to use forfeiture as a legitimate tool. Current law also brings the revenue generated from asset forfeiture into an appropriate budget process and provides accountability while removing any appearance of impropriety. HB 09-1238 repeals these fundamental principals of fairness and due process. It also creates an unacceptable profit motive for law enforcement.

What good is the Democratic Party if it doesn't even stand up for basic civil rights? (Republican Shawn Mitchell played a pivotal role in passing the 2002 reforms, and Republican Bill Owens signed the bill.) Whether or not this bill makes it through a Democratic legislature will reveal a great deal about the soul of the Democratic Party.

Comment by Anonymous: Colorado Asset Forfeiture Alert! Pending Bill HB09-1238 HB 09-1238 is a dangerous Asset Forfeiture Bill. The real estate industry might want to get more involved to stop this legislation, No Conviction Would Be Necessary for police to forfeit property in certain Civil Asset Forfeitures. If this un-American bill is passed, it might be better to rent, not own Colorado real estate or businesses vulnerable to police forfeiture. After you read HB 09-1238, you might come to the conclusion that Colorado business brokers and real estate agents should by law, disclose to property buyers the horrendous civil asset forfeiture provisions of HB09-1238 should this bill pass. Even if alerting real estate buyers means discouraging investors. It is foreseeable "HB 09-1238 police forfeitures" without needing a conviction—could drive down property values in poorer communities where crime is higher; especially rental property. Neighborhood schools and other government services dependent on already declining property taxes could be adversely affected. What about rich neighborhoods? Colorado is famous for its rich resorts like Aspen where countless homes and condominiums are rented to vacationers. After HB09-1238 is passed, what are the odds of some Aspen rentals being rented to lawbreakers unbeknownst to their owners? Under HB09-1238 it appears vacation homeowners could be subject to civil asset forfeiture, lose his or her property if a court determined they had reason to know of certain lawbreaking activities at their home, e.g., don't bring your teenagers to the Colorado vacation house—they might get into trouble—again. No one need be convicted of a crime for a vacation owner's property to be civilly forfeited. Even someone not intelligent should be able to determine that after a number of publicized "HB09-1238 forfeitures" less and less people will want to own rental and vacation property in Colorado; especially buyers of vacation homes who intended renting their property. "HB09-1238 civil forfeitures" has the potential of driving down property values and collected real estate taxes. Some of the same county governments that supported this kind of asset forfeiture might have to layoff government workers, but probably not police, as police can help themselves through more asset forfeiture. For Colorado Civil Asset Forfeiture Bill HB09-1238 go to http://statebillinfo.com/sbi/index.cfm?fuseaction=Bills.View&session=09&... Some highlights of pending Forfeiture Bill HB09-1238: Colorado police would need only claim a property or business was involved in a Class 1 public nuisance (5.1) (b) to seize the building and land. Pending HB09-1238 effectively states, No Conviction Would Be Necessary" for police to forfeit property in many forfeitures... Under HB09-1238 "Class 1 public nuisance" property owners appear to start out civilly guilty having to prove they did not "REASONABLY KNOW" of a public nuisance act or had notice of acts on their property creating a public nuisance. Amazingly HB09-1238 would force property and business owners to defend their property by proving what he or she knew or did not know? It appears if an owner had one percent reason to know something they might lose one-hundred-percent of their property to civil asset forfeiture. Shockingly HB09-1238 would Repeal—a court—staying a Civil Asset Forfeiture proceeding until a criminal trial related to the owner's seized property was finished. Defendants could have difficulty defending their property in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding if any statement they make in a criminal trial might be used against them in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding or visa versa to take their property, i.e., trapped by collateral-estoppel evidence. Owners found not guilty in a criminal trial under HB09-1238 might subsequently lose their property to Asset Forfeiture in a Civil Asset Forfeiture proceeding, not because an owner broke a law, but because he or she knew something regardless of criminal intent. HB09-1238 would Repeal: In the event criminal charges arising from the same activity giving rise to the forfeiture proceedings are filed against any individual claiming an interest in the property subject to the forfeiture proceeding, the trial and discovery phases of the forfeiture proceeding shall be stayed by the court until the disposition of the criminal charges. A stay shall not be maintained during an appeal or 18 post-conviction proceeding challenging a criminal conviction… HB09-1238
Would Repeal: That a conviction must be obtained in the same jurisdiction as the jurisdiction in which the forfeiture action is brought; That in specified circumstances a forfeiture action may proceed and judgment may be entered without a criminal conviction of the owner... Would Repeal: That all forfeiture actions shall proceed in state district court if the property was seized by a local or state law enforcement agency as a result of an ongoing state criminal investigation... Would Repeal: Allows a court to order any property subject to forfeiture to be sold by a sheriff in the manner provided for sales on execution. States how the proceeds of the sale shall be applied, including providing funding for mental health treatment and a victim notification network... See Complete Asset Forfeiture Bill HB09-1238 Forfeiture At: http://statebillinfo.com/sbi/index.cfm?fuseaction=Bills.View&session=09&...

Jail for Translators

March 4, 2009

Tom Bowden (http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/lost-in-translation/) points to a (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7893171.stm) disturbing article by BBC News:

An Afghanistan appeal court has upheld 20-year jail terms for two men who published a translation of the Koran.

The prosecution said the translation contained mistakes and called for the defendants to be executed.

The men were convicted of modifying the Muslim holy book into Persian while not including the original Arabic text. ... The men plan to appeal to the country's highest court. ...

Meanwhile, the appeal court reduced the sentence of the owner of the print shop which published the book from five years to 15 months, time which he has already served.

Three other men, charged with trying to help Zalmai flee the country, were sentenced to just over seven months, also time already served, according to the AP news agency.

Notice that the "criminals" are Muslims who were attempting to promote Islam.

Jail for translation "mistakes?" The threat of death? In an alleged court of law? It's hard even to know what to say about this, except that the participants in this grotesque mockery of justice are barbarians suffering from self-induced lunacy.

Bowden points out that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, not to establish a government based on individual rights, but to protect the ability of the locals to brutalize one another under religious "law."

New New Mac

March 4, 2009

As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/new-mac.html) mentioned yesterday, my wife and I purchased a new iMac on Sunday. On Tuesday, Apple came out with a line of new iMacs consisting of better machines for less money. I appreciate the fact that there is a transition period between old and new product, but I felt slightly jilted that Apple neglected to tell me about the pending change, which obviously would have affected my purchase schedule.

But the Apple store was very good about exchanging the machine, though I did have to eat a ten percent "restocking" fee (even though they're not actually going to restock the computer). I had suggested that Apple simply incentivize me to keep the old machine, but that proposal was dismissed. However, now I'm glad that we actually did the upgrade; as good as Sunday's machine was, Tuesday's machine is a lot better. Now you can get a larger screen, bigger hard drive, and more and better RAM for less money. This again demonstrates the phenomenal success of the ongoing computer revolution.

The upshot for readers is that now is a great time to (http://www.apple.com/imac/) buy an iMac. These powerful, all-included machines start at $1200. That's less than what the Amiga (http://oldcomputers.net/amiga1000.html) sold for back in 1985 with its 256K of memory and floppy disk drive (never mind inflation). I did love my Amiga, but in retrospect is seems like a child's toy. Amazing.

Incidentally, last night we watched Joss Whedon's Dollhouse (Fox) online. The third episode, "Stage Fright," is especially well written and performed. If you haven't started watching the series, you're missing out. I remember the days when I strung a cable from the phone jack to my fancy new modem so I could chat with the locals. Now I'm watching "television" on my computer over a cable line. Again, amazing.

As easy as it is to get bummed out by the economic recession and the federal shenanigans, the advance of computers serves as a reminder of the magnificent productive force of the capitalist system, even one hampered by increasing political controls. We live in a glorious age. It makes you wonder what would be possible in a free, unfettered economy, doesn't it?

Comment by Dave Barnes: Ari, "but I felt slightly jilted that Apple neglected to tell me about the pending change" What?! Apple never announces new products in advance. Well, the iPhone was an exception. Have fun with your new iMac. ,dave

Church Demeans Raped Girl

March 5, 2009

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504525,00.html) "RIO DE JANEIRO—A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church."

What could possibly be the reason for the Church's insane, inhuman position? A lawyer for the church said, "It's the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder."

But apparently it's perfectly okay by God to put the life of a young girl at risk for a pregnancy with practically no chance of ending in successful birth.

Leaving aside the fact that the Christian Bible is at best ambiguous on the matter of abortion, this is an obvious case of a perfectly moral, justified, appropriate abortion. And yet the church is trying to lay a lifetime of guilt on the young girl following her brutal victimization.

Yet contemporary Christian dogma leads logically, inexorably, to the conclusion that the lives of actual human beings must be sacrificed to the lives of fertilized eggs. The fantasy that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a born infant is, as I've (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) indicated, in fact the anti-life position.

An Ode to Inky Fingers

March 5, 2009

For somebody who claims to hate reading ink-on-paper news publications (as opposed to reading the same publications online), I spent a lot of time yesterday and this morning getting my fingers inky.

I still haven't gotten used to the new morning routine. By habit, I check DenverPost.com, then RockyMountainNews.com—because I like to save the best for last. But now the second page contains the same old content, as the Rocky has gone under. I felt like I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone when I pulled up Vincent Carroll's (http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_11821118) first column for the competition.

That is great news, by the way: the Post has picked up not only Carroll but Lynn Bartels, the capitol reporter, and Mike Littwin, the writer of political humor and humorous politics (and sometimes politics quite serious). With Carroll on the editorial board, perhaps the Post's editorial page will improve. Though I sincerely miss the Rocky's editorial page, and I doubt the Post will ever come close.

(It's hard for me to complain too much, though, as the March 4 Post featured a (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/03/04/legislator%E2%80%99s-comments-on-promiscuous-women-2-letters/) letter of mine arguing that, despite State Senator David Schultheis's "repulsive and shameful" comments about HIV testing for pregnant women, "politicians need to stop manipulating our health decisions, whatever their motive." The letter follows up on my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/colorado-gop-self-destructs.html) first and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/hiv-testing-opens-door-to-abortion.html) second post on the matter.)

The upshot is that the Post seems to be making a genuine effort to reach out to Rocky readers and improve its publication.

Of course, there is also the Denver Daily News, where, upon checking, I immediately found a (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=3505) story of great interest to me (about contraception). So perhaps I'll have to start checking out that publication more regularly.

Back to the inky fingers. Last night my wife and I stopped by the local King Soopers to pick up some milk. We noticed that the store had some copies left of the final Rocky. (Perhaps the Denver Newspaper Agency released extra copies.) So we flipped through the paper—every page of it—in profound sadness. It was a history lesson in fifteen minutes, as the paper reviewed its major stories over its many years.

About half way through the paper, the neighborhood suffered a blackout. For a few moments, the store went completely dark. (I was happy to have a mini flashlight in my pocket, which I've started carrying around all the time.) The store has emergency power, so the lights (at least some of them) quickly came back on. For the Rocky, it is lights out, for good.

Westword

I had also fallen behind my reading of Westword, Colorado's most important "alternative" weekly. I finally read Joel Warner's fabulous (http://www.westword.com/2009-02-05/news/medical-marijuana-has-become-a-growth-industry-in-colorado) article on Colorado's medical marijuana industry.

I read Patricia Calhoun's (http://www.westword.com/2009-03-05/news/the-colorado-civil-rights-division-has-a-double-standard-for-ladies-nights-and-newspapers) new story about that (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/02/horner.html) rights-violating bastard Steve Horner and his enabling bureaucrats.

I also read four papers' worth of Jason Sheehan, the food critic, finishing the final one this morning. Listen, I don't give a crap about fancy restaurants. If I eat at a restaurant, a rare occurrence, I almost always to go a local chain food shop. I never, ever read food criticism. It seems so silly to me, to write about food, of all things, especially considering everything that's going on in the world.

But I love Jason Sheehan. I even imagine myself sitting in the restaurants he describes, and almost wishing I were there (I mean, for the ones earning good reviews). Sheehan loves food. He adores it. He lives for it. He always finds an interesting back story. And it is inspiring to read a talented writer with a sincere passion for his work.

I figured out just this morning that, to read all of Sheehan, one must turn to not one, not two, but three pages of Westword. He writes, "Cafe," "Bite Me," and "Second Helping."

I don't even know what the hell grits are, and I don't even know whether I've ever eaten them. Some sort of corn dish, I gather. But (http://www.westword.com/2009-02-19/restaurants/holly-hartnett-finally-got-her-own-restaurant-with-venue-and-it-s-great/) grits are religion to Sheehan:

Once cooked and plated, grits become recalcitrant. They refuse to absorb sauce, refuse to even mix well—becoming clotty and stained rather than blended, ugly and foul and (if any food can be) ill-tempered. Grits are tough. They have very specific ideas about their proper employment on the plate and will brook no f***ing around.

(Sorry about the asterisks, but I've sworn off extreme swearing for this page, and I'm going to stick to the policy even when it seems unnecessary.)

Considering some of Sheehan's descriptions—"the dried cherries were another smart addition, cutting the richness of the bacon and the weight of the white corn with a little zing of tart and sweet," "fresh thyme and garlic, an unexpected dart of spice that hits you right on the back of the tongue"—it occurred to me that Sheehan is not a food critic, after all. He is still a chef, except now his ingredients are words.

* * *

My beloved Rocky Mountain News (and it's easy to forget my criticisms of it over the years in a time like this) is dead. Print journalism in Colorado will never be the same. But, new and old, personal and corporate, online and ink-stained, journalism continues. Anyone who has taken a peek at our region or our world knows that good journalism is more important than ever.

Around Colorado: March 5, 2009

March 5, 2009

Mike McConnell Discusses Food-Stamp Diet

Yesterday (March 4) I appeared on Mike McConnell's radio show for about a quarter of an hour to discuss my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/low-carb-diet-food-stamp-budget.html) "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet." The audio file is available [link not available]. I argued that the main problem with federal programs like food stamps is that, by forcing people to contribute, such programs sever the link between donors and recipients. (The more fundamental problem is that such programs violate people's rights, but I left that point in the background for this brief radio appearance.) This ruins the incentive of donors to watch how their dollars are spent as well as the incentive of recipients to use the benefits responsibly and gratefully. The result is hard feelings and an overpriced program rife with problems.

Government Transparency

This should be a cause that everyone can support—everyone but those wasting tax dollars, that is: transparency, or putting all documents related to government spending on the internet, for everyone to see. Following is a March 4 media release from the Colorado House GOP:

Taxpayers scored a victory today when the House Finance Committee gave unanimous support of Rep. B.J. Nikkel's, R-Loveland, Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act. The act, House Bill 1288, would create an online database to detail how the government is spending the taxpayer's money.

"The state government is one of the only institutions that will spend your money without telling you what it's spending it on. This is not the government's money, it's your money, and you have every right to know how it's being used," said Nikkel.

The legislation is similar to bills that have passed in several states, including Missouri, Kansas and Texas, as well as in the United States Senate. The U.S. Senate version of transparency was sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Sen. Tom Colburn, R-Oklahoma.

"Democrats and Republicans alike understand that this needs to be a law, not just an executive order that can be rescinded at anytime," added Nikkel.

HB 1288's next stop will be the House Appropriations Committee.

Forfeiture Update

The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition sent out an update regarding the nasty (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/stop-forfeiture-abuse.html) asset forfeiture bill. The bill is now scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on March 16 at 1:30 p.m. CCJRC reports, "The bill sponsor, Rep. Rice, has requested a later hearing date because he is working on a substantial amendment to the bill as introduced." But why amend something that so obviously deserves a stake through the heart?

The Inflation Menace

March 5, 2009

I've joked with several friends that we should create a betting pool to predict the top inflation rate over the next few years. My bet is that inflation will top out at 11 percent (on an annual track). Some of my friends think I'm playing Pollyanna.

While it's impossible to figure out precisely how the future will play out, due to the many factors and the inherent unpredictability of human choices, Paul Hsieh has (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/03/when-will-inflation-hit_05.shtml) brought forth some uncomfortable data, brought to us (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_01-2009_03_07.shtml#1236010275) via Todd Zywicki, (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDcwMWI2NzllZGQ5ZDgwYmE1ZGFmMjUzMjg4MTVlN2E=) via Peter Robinson, via Andy Kessler, from the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis. The upshot is that the number of dollars has skyrocketed in the last few months. As in, roughly doubled.

Zywicki argues—and I've heard this before—that so far we have not seen the increased money translate to high rates of inflation because "'velocity' of money has remained low—people and banks are hoarding money, rather than spending, borrowing, and lending it."

But I don't see how its possible to avoid serious inflation at some point, quite possibly amidst an economic recession.

Arveschoug-Bird

March 6, 2009

Mike Littwin is among the Rocky writers to make the jump to the Denver Post. With all the shaking up, I wish the Post had decided to put its editorial writers on, you know, its editorial page, but for some reason that escapes me it continues to put a select corps of editorial writers on the news side.

(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11848225) Today Littwin argues that the "repeal of the Arveschoug-Bird provision... [is] a start toward fiscal sanity." Littwin's reason for this? Wait a minute... this is Mike Littwin, so he doesn't need any reasons. He's just that funny.

It is admittedly a complicated issue. So who better to explain it than the leftist (http://www.coloradobudget.com/repository/PDF/ArveschougLimit.pdf) Bighorn Center?

Arveschoug-Bird limits the growth of General Fund expenditures to 6% more than the previous year or 5% of personal income, whichever amount is lower. In practice the 6% limit is always less. ...

Arveschoug-Bird limits only General Fund spending while TABOR limits the total amount of revenues that state and local governments can keep. Revenues includes most state fees.

With the passage of TABOR, Arveschoug-Bird effectively became "constitutionalized" since TABOR does not allow any spending limit to be weakened without a vote of the people.

There are some notable exceptions that are not counted under the Arveschoug-Bird limit, such as General Fund spending mandated by the federal government and transfers to capital construction.

Wait another minute... where is this "vote of the people?" The Democrats' answer is basically, "We don't need no stinkin' vote of the people." Colorado Independent (http://coloradoindependent.com/23203/budget-reform-bill-weathers-gop-filibuster-clears-another-hurdle) explains, "Supporters of the bill, relying on a recent interpretation of the law written by former Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofky, argued that Arveschoug-Bird is not a cap but an allocation strategy..."

(http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/961/26/) Here is the Republican response:

The bill would end a long-standing policy that caps the growth of the state's operating budget at 6 percent a year. The legislation would amount to a dramatic shift--shorting highways untold billions of dollars in the years to come—because of a formula that directs all revenue in excess of the cap to transportation and other critical capital projects. Without the cap, the highway-funding formula is moot.

"...the pressure to grow operating programs is immense," Denver Chamber spokesperson Tamra Ward says in prepared a statement distributed to the business community. "The 6 percent limit prevents operating spending from growing beyond a sustainable level."

"This bill jeopardizes any hope we might have of fully funding vital road and bridge needs for the foreseable future," said Assistant GOP Leader Greg Brophy, of Wray. "So it's really no surprise that so many business groups have stepped forward to call the Democrats out on this reckless move."

In the end, I simply don't trust the Democrats to treat the matter as an "allocation strategy." Instead, they'll treat it as a way to shortchange transportation so that they can fund other programs, then plead with the taxpayers for new transportation-specific taxes. That's just the way they roll.

Around Colorado: March 6, 2009

March 6, 2009

Today I've already covered (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/colorados-gambling-problem.html) gambling, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/ftc-goons-force-whole-foods-fire-sale.html) antitrust, and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/arveschoug-bird.html) spending limits. Now that I'm warmed up...

More on Inflation

The Gazette noticed my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/inflation-menace.html) post on inflation and published a (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/money_49429___article.html/supply_graph.html) lengthier treatment of the issue:

Ari Armstrong, a rock star in Colorado's libertarian community and publisher of FreeColorado.com, recommends an alarming visual exhibit of the nation's growing money supply. Don't look at this if you don't have a strong stomach. It's a graph showing the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis' adjusted monetary base, the combined index of Federal Reserve activity pertaining to the money supply (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS?cid=124). The graph shows the money supply's gradual ascent starting in the early 20th century until now. In 2008 the graph shoots straight up in the air, revealing a one-year inflation of the cash supply that equals its growth over the past 100 years.

I picked up the information from Paul Hsieh, whose (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/03/when-will-inflation-hit_05.shtml) post features a number of interesting comments about the meaning and potential implications of the data.

Also, I'm not actually a libertarian any longer, for reasons I've (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/whats-wrong-with-libertarianism.html) explained. Finally, what is needed now is not guns and God, as the Gazette suggests, but a true understanding of economic liberty, rooted in a moral defense of capitalism. Yet obviously I appreciate the Gazette's more detailed treatment of the crucial issue of inflation, along with the friendly mention.

Littwin: Si

I was giving Mike Littwin a bit of heck earlier today over spending limits, but he's on more solid ground when it comes to (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11848225) in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I just don't see this as a big deal either way, though some Republicans are using it as an excuse to rile up the xenophobes and avoid the serious issues facing the state.

Should illegals get in-state tuition? The problem is that this shouldn't be a legislative issue. Colleges should not get tax funds. Colleges should be able to admit whom they please, at whatever cost they agree on with students. Those willing to accept those terms should be able to go. But Republicans couldn't possibly discuss any fundamental issue. They instead grant the premise that college students should benefit from forced wealth transfers, then debate the miniscule details over how to divvy up the loot.

Glass Is Back

Welcome back, Bob. Glass is back. A one-time leader of the now-defunct Tyranny Response Team and general all-around hell raiser, Glass is back in Colorado, and last night he was out protesting the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the plagiarist Ward Churchill. He got the attention of Boulder's Daily Camera:

"As a taxpayer, I resent any tax dollars going to a fraud like Ward Churchill," said another protester, Bob Glass, of Longmont. "I believe in academic freedom, but let's invite the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazis if we're going to take this to the absurd."

Glass also made an appearance on 7 News, where he said Ayers and Churchill belong behind bars, not in a lecture hall. Here Glass goes too far. While Ayers might have belonged behind bars at one time, that time is long passed. And Churchill, while a complete schmuck and a liar, hasn't done anything criminal. The worse offense is by the idiots at the University of Colorado who hired the fraud in the first place.

Glass is a passionate guy. If he can rein in his passion with good sense, he'll be a valued addition to Colorado's liberty movement.

Job Sharing

I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm still shocked by the raw stupidity that some people display about the economy. For example, Steve Luera (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/03/05/here%E2%80%99s-an-idea-for-the-economy-job-sharing/) argues in a letter to the Denver Post that "we" should "cut the jobs you do have in half and spread them around so everyone at least has something."

The basic mistake here is to imagine that there are only a set number of jobs, and once those jobs are taken, everybody else is out of luck. Obviously that's idiotic. (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001798.html) "Back in July 1776, there were about 2.5 million people living in the colonies." Now there are over 300 million people in in the United States. So how did the economy manage to grow by scores of millions of jobs?

Since the Industrial Revolution, fewer and fewer people have labored in agriculture and have moved to an increasingly diverse array of jobs. Today people work in jobs unimagined at the nation's founding, especially in the technological sectors, and also in newer service jobs such as pet care and professional massage. There is no inherent limit to the amount of jobs an economy can support. If a billion people lived in the United States, a billion people could, in a system of liberty, find work, and the number of specialties would increase.

On a free market, one without the wage and employment controls of today's economy, everyone who wants to work can find work, excepting a relatively low and constant percent of people momentarily between jobs. It is a matter of supply and demand. True, economic shocks can temporarily throw some people out of particular jobs, but they can soon find new ones, unless political controls muck up the employment market, as they so often have and as they continue to do today.

Hoover imposed wage controls and job sharing, and the result was the worst depression in the nation's history. (He made many other mistakes as well.) The answer to unemployment is economic liberty, not more of the controls that caused unemployment in the first place.

Axe Taxes Not Jobs

Dave Thomas sent me a (http://axetaxesnotjobs.com/) link to a liquor alliance fighting higher taxes on their products.

In the coming months, lawmakers will be proposing alcohol tax increases that will put jobs in your community at risk and raise the cost of your favorite drink. There's a real price to pay when elected officials misguidedly try to replenish state budgets with regressive taxes that will hit us at a time when we are already being hit hard conomically.

Cheers, brothers.

Federal Spending

Mike Rosen—another Rocky carry over—has a (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11847555) hard-hitting column out today about the democratic problem of "we the people" helping ourselves to other people's money. And David Harsanyi (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11847554) offers his take on federal spending that is at the same time humorous and terrifying.

Colorado's Gambling Problem

March 6, 2009

Colorado has a gambling problem. The problem is that it is illegal. That is, it is illegal unless you run a politically approved gambling house in a politically approved gambling town, or if you help run the state's own (http://www.coloradolottery.com/) gambling ring ("Don't Forget to Play"). Then gambling is perfectly fine with the authorities. But, other than that, it is illegal. Because, you know, we wouldn't want the laws to be anything other than completely hypocritical.

Gambling does not inherently violate anybody's rights, and thus the government has no legitimate business outlawing it. However, illegal gambling is necessarily run by criminals. It turns out that incentivizing criminals to run gambling rings is a pretty stupid idea, because criminals often do a poor job of it. If we outlawed cigarettes, those would be sold by criminals, too, rather than at the local grocery store. Even though gambling itself violates no rights, criminals who run illegal gambling operations often figure out ways to break legitimate laws in the process.

Turning gambling into a crime, then, generates real crimes, and it also wastes precious tax resources on enforcement. If gambling were legal, it would be safe and easily monitored.

If gambling were legal, would some idiots with mouths to feed lose their shirts—and their grocery funds—playing games? Yes, they would. But living in a free society means that people have the right to act stupid. Some people lose their shirts even when gambling is illegal. Some people will act like morons no matter what the law says. But consenting adults have the right to gamble, whether they do so responsibly or irresponsibly. At the same time, spouses of irresponsible gamblers have the right to file for divorce, and friends of irresponsible gamblers have the right to exhort them to better behavior. If people want to voluntarily fund anti-gambling messages or programs, that too is their right.

Colorado authorities have busted two illegal gambling rings, one just this week and one in 2008.

Kieran Nicholson of the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11844872) reports, "A tavern owner in Colorado Springs has been arrested for running illegal poker games for cash in his bar, police said. ... The raid was a culmination of a three-month investigation by the liquor-enforcement unit of the police department."

They have a "liquor-enforcement unit?" That busts illegal gambling rings? So let me get this straight: residents of Colorado Springs would rather pay taxes for cops to bust players of games than, say, investigate auto thieves and violent criminals. Huh.

But that's the little story. The Big Story involves famous names—"top Denver names [!]," the Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11849301) assures us, including "2 former Broncos [!!]," 9News (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=111216&catid=339) gushes, so that's way better for selling newspapers and television advertisements. (Tom McGhee of the Post joined Deborah Sherman of 9News to report the story.)

By the Post's account, the operators of the ring were true bastards who (allegedly) broke legitimate laws:

Nobody brought money to the table. Instead, gamblers played on the book, an arrangement that let them settle up with the house at the end of the game. ...

[Jeffrey] Castardi was also putting money on the street in loans, registering the outlays in a book and mercilessly dunning his debtors, according to the indictment.

Those who borrowed, or couldn't pay back the house after a night of cards, paid a steep price—5 percent interest per week or more, authorities said.

One of those players was Eric Cox, whose wife, Cathy Lopez, found his cellphone near the spot where he killed himself. There were numerous text messages—some threatening, and some sent on the day he died—from Castardi and Daniel Rieke, who is also named in the indictment.

9News adds that the operation also allegedly employed "theft, forgery, [and] fraud," according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Obviously, this could never happen with a legal gambling operation. The government properly protects against theft and fraud as a matter of protecting rights. As for the collection tactics, if you don't pay your credit card companies, they don't send out Guido to break your legs or anything like that. Instead, such matters are settled in court. No legal gambling operation would front players serious money they couldn't cover, because the risk of loss would be very high.

So employees of CBI, the (http://www.ago.state.co.us/press_detail.cfmpressID=952.html) attorney general's office, "the Denver Police Department, [and] the Colorado Department of Revenue" can round-robin back-slap all they want. The fact remains that they are spending tax dollars to "solve" problems created largely by the very laws they are paid to enforce. But, hey, it's great business, for criminals, cops, and media alike.

Comment by Anonymous: legal gambiling enterprises do not charge 250% per year however. And they use the courts instead of intimidation to recoup their money

FTC Goons Force Whole Foods Fire Sale

March 6, 2009

As (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/12/ftc-continues-whole-foods-witch-hunt.html) discussed, in this tough economic time the Federal Trade Commission continues to punish Whole Foods for the "crime" of conducting business. The antitrust laws that form the pretext of the FTC's abuses are (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_antitrust) inherently unjust, though even within antitrust dogma the crusade against Whole Foods is insane.

Even though Whole Foods is buying out Wild Oats, the chain still faces stiff competition from King Soopers, Albertsons, Safeway, Sprouts, Sunflower, Vitamin Cottage, and numerous independent and ethnic markets. The FTC is putting the screws on Whole Foods out of sheer vindictiveness, just to prove that it can. The FTC's thug, who ultimately threaten armed enforcement if their dictates are not obeyed, are destroying economic wealth—hurting both businesses and their consumers—for the sake of destruction.

The AP (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11851898) reports, "Whole Foods Market says it will sell 13 stores to resolve the Federal Trade Commission's challenge against the grocer over its purchase of Boulder, Colo.-based Wild Oats Markets. ... Once it gets approval from the FTC, the company says it will take a non-cash charge of no more than $19 million for the sale of the stores."

Never mind what the stores might be worth on an open market, never mind that Whole Foods has the right to run them, never mind that whoever buys the stores is unlikely to reduce prices in them, the FTC is forcing Whole Foods to sell stores even at a loss just to get the goon squad off their backs. It is a deal they can't refuse.

Religious Affiliation Dropping

March 9, 2009

The big religious news of the day comes from the American Religious Identification Survey 2008 from a group out of Trinity College. The AP put out a (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506849,00.html) story on the results, (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm) as did USA Today and other publications.

From the (http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/highlights.html) highlights of the survey:

86% of American adults identified as Christians in 1990 and 76% in 2008.

The historic Mainline churches and denominations have experienced the steepest declines while the non-denominational Christian identity has been trending upward particularly since 2001. ...

34% of American adults considered themselves "Born Again or Evangelical Christians" in 2008. ...

Based on their stated beliefs rather than their religious identification in 2008, 70% of Americans believe in a personal God, roughly 12% of Americans are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure), and another 12% are deistic (a higher power but no personal God).

The fact that 70 percent of people "believe in a personal God" while 34 percent call themselves evangelical means that the United States continues to be an overwhelmingly Christian nation. If we combine atheists, agnostics, and deists, that totals only 24 percent of the population—a large figure, but one still surpassed by evangelicals.

In (http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/part3c_geog.html) Colorado, the only big shift has been for "Nones" (no religion), which has grown from 13 percent to 21 percent from 1990 to 2008. Of course, for those of us interested in politics, the survey results don't reveal much of the interesting information. Some Christians endorse the separation of church and state; some are more open to political economic and social controls (and those two groups partly overlap).

And the decline of religion does not indicate what is on the rise. What do people believe instead of religion? Some secular philosophies are at least as bad as any popular religion. What is most important is what people believe, not what they don't believe.

Don't Watch the Watchmen

March 9, 2009

Who watches the Watchmen? Me, unfortunately. But you can learn from my mistake and stay away, far, far away, from this viciously repugnant film. I cannot explain what is wrong with the movie without revealing key elements of plot, so if you are already determined to see the movie, DO NOT read on. At least you can't say I didn't warn you.

Though a movie superficially about "super heroes," these "heroes" are either brutal murderers, vicious psychopaths, or impotent sideliners.

I'll get right to it. In order to get the United States and Soviet Union to start working together in a common cause, rather than blow each other up in nuclear war, Ozymandias murders some 15 million people in various cities around the world and lets the world believe Dr. Manhattan, another of the Watchmen, is to blame. Dr. Manhattan, who set up Richard Nixon for additional terms as president, "understands" this mass murder while neither condoning nor condemning it, right before splattering another of the Watchmen for threatening to tell the truth about what happened.

The theme of the movie, then, is that the ends justify the means, however barbaric, murderous, unprincipled, detestable, and horrific. (In reality the chosen means would achieve only suffering, tyranny, and death.) Notice a couple of things. It is the very existence of Dr. Manhattan and his support of Nixon that led to Nixon's continued presidency and the continued cold war, and thus the "need" for Ozymandias to murder 15 million people. And Ozymandias is known as the "world's smartest man." The movie thus attacks heroism as such at the deepest level.

The film's stylish artistry, along with its two characters of any virtue, serve only to mask the film's basic indecency. Ultimately, though, those two characters—Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II (brilliantly portrayed, I confess, by Patrick Wilson)—serve only to illustrate the fundamental futility of true heroism.

Though Flibbert is (http://flibbertigibbet.mu.nu/movie_review_watchmen) basically correct about the film, he doesn't get these characters' relationship quite right. Owl can't express his romantic interest in Spectre so long as he surrenders to fear. So he comes out of retirement and, with Spectre, first saves people from a burning building and then breaks a compatriot out of prison. Here these characters are tough, resilient, actually heroic, and very bad-ass. But these adventures do not impact the broader course of the movie. In the end, they accomplish nothing. Ozymandias claims that their greatest triumph is failing to stop the mass murders.

This disgusting film—which (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/) got a 65 percent "fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, leading me to question the sanity of movie critics—made $55.7 million opening weekend. It (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/business) cost around $130 million. My only hope is that those of us suckered into seeing it tell all our friends to abstain from rewarding this monstrous film with additional ticket dollars.

Comment by Anonymous: I sat through this mess of a movie, and feel the same way. I was also, like you, struck by Dan Dreiberg's performance. I thought the rest of the acting was poor at best.

Comment by Anonymous: The name of the actor who played Nite Owl II is Patrick Wilson. Dan Dreiberg is the character's fictional 'real name.'

Comment by Ari: Thanks for the correction. I corrected the original post by replacing "Dan Dreiberg," the name of Nite Owl's alter ego, with "Patrick Wilson," the actor who played Dreiberg/Owl.

Comment by Anonymous: The Watchmen weren't heroes in the simplistic comic book sense. They were ultimately misguided, deranged, impotent, etc who were trying to do good for others, sacrificing themselves. Ultimately evil either in action or accepting of the result. One man knew it to be evil and while he could not exact justice; he would tell the world or die trying. Heroic indeed.

Comment by Tenure: I think you misunderstand the point of the Film/Comic (I'll refer to them one and the same, because it is a very faithful adaption). The point Alan Moore was making was certainly not that the ends justify the means, nor that it is right for heroes to be 'murderers... psychopaths or impotent sideliners'. Those who walk away from the film thinking that the film is justifying those things, make the same mistake as those who walk away from Fight Club, thinking that it glorifies nihilism. It is meant to make Heroism look futile, I'll agree there. However, that is really more of a plot-device than a theme, since it is used to get to this deeper question of this whole 'ends justifying the means' thing, and the question of 'Who watches the watchmen?'. I actually hope more films are made, not with this sense of film, but with respect to: casting; depth of plot and theme; complexity; soundtrack; and, visuals/style.

Comment by Tenure: Er, realised a typo in my previous comment. It should read, "I actually hope more films are made, not with this sense of LIFE..." What I meant was that qua film, it's very well done. It handles it's theme and subject very well and produces a very good film—as a work of art, what it represents, is something thought (and emotion) provoking, but with very malevolent and depressing overtones.
As someone said on Diana's blog, in the latest Sunday open-comment: Moore seems to think in images and present them very well. The actually conceptual substance behind them, however, is severely lacking.

Comment by Tenure: One more thing: A quote from Alan Moore. His stated intention with 'Watchmen' was to create an...
"admonition to those who trusted in 'heroes' and leaders to guard the world's fate." He added that to place faith in such icons was to give up personal responsibility to "the Reagans, Thatchers, and other 'Watchmen' of the world who supposed to 'rescue' us and perhaps lay waste to the planet in the process" His point was not that heroes are bad. What he is criticising are the supposed "heroes" that people put their lives in the trust of, asking them to take moral responsibility, and to do the things—horrible, unspeakable things—that they would not dare do themselves, but thought would be necessary.

Personhood: Subjectivism Versus Faith

March 10, 2009

Electa Draper's (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11874965) article on in vitro fertilization illustrates perfectly the problem with the traditional debate, not only over personhood, but over ethics more broadly.

Draper notes that Kathleen McCann Gregor changed her mind after undergoing in vitro fertilization: she now considers the "tiny embryos produced outside her body and grown in a petri dish" to be people. She said, "They are our babies."

What is the argument for the claim that a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells the the equivalent of a born baby? No argument is offered; Gregor feels it, and that is enough. This is a straightforward subjectivist view.

Next Draper presents the skeptical view. Deb Bennett-Woods, "director of the Center for Ethics and Leadership in the Health Professions at Regis University," told Draper, "We haven't yet answered the question of the moral status of the embryo. Is it a collection of living cells with human DNA or is it a person?"

The Christians will be more than happy to answer for such skeptics:

"We must recognize that it is God's business as to precisely when He ensouls embryos," writes Catholic neuroscientist and priest Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. "The fundamental truth (is) that human embryos are inviolable and deserving of unconditional respect at every stage of their existence."

People need not decide for themselves the status of a fertilized egg: this is God's business, and God, through his chosen representatives, has told us that a fertilized egg is a person. QED.

Now we learn more about Gregor. She is Catholic, yet she rejects the Church's view on in vitro fertilization even as she accepts the Church's view of personhood: "I knew in my own conscience it was right. Having gone through the process, there is no way I could think of an embryo as anything but my baby."

This illustrates the link between subjectivism and religious faith. Her "conscience"—her feelings—told her to accept Church dogma on some matters but not others. Treating the matter as "God's business" ultimately reduces to subjectivism, because ultimately all we have are people Making Stuff Up about God's alleged commands.

Finally we get another subjectivist view from Dr. William D. Schlaff, "head of advanced reproductive medicine at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine," who said, "We live in a pluralistic society. We have to respect the autonomy of each American to make this decision for themselves."

But that argument gets us nowhere. Do "we have to respect the autonomy of each American" to kill their children or abuse them? Obviously such a notion is horrific. If a fertilized egg is a person, then it must not be destroyed.

Draper presents four basic views: the subjective belief that a fertilized egg is a person, the subjective belief that it isn't, the skeptical belief that no answer is possible, and the religious belief that God says a fertilized egg is a person.

Hmm... What's missing here? What Draper steadfastly refuses to report is the view that the matter is to be decided by the evidence, by reference to the facts of reality. Diana Hsieh and I address the matter of in vitro fertilization in our (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper on personhood. In that paper we demonstrate, through argument and evidence (as opposed to feelings or faith) that a fertilized egg is not a person. To date, nobody has seriously attempted to refute our case. But then, refutations are rather beside the point for those who rest their views on faith or emotions.

Around Colorado: March 10, 2009

March 10, 2009

Massachusetts Again

Apparently the advocates of socialized medicine will never give up, no matter how many times a variant of their schemes fails, no matter how many times their premises are defeated.

Michael Salem, president and CEO of National Jewish Health, (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11873607) argues—no "argues" is not quite the right word, since he doesn't actually offer any argument—that "Colorado should look at various models (such as Massachusetts)" in designing political controls of medicine.

To learn why that would be a disaster, and why we need liberty in medicine rather than more political controls, read the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp) article of Paul Hsieh, MD, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America."

Brian Schwartz also has out a good (http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/2009/mar/08/independence-institute-single-payer-health-care/) op-ed on health policy, published by Colorado Daily.

Keep Electoral College

Here's (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_11875255) another one for the "Why Are We Still Talking About This" file: "If lawmakers ultimately approve House Bill 1299, Colorado will join a still-small coalition of states that vow to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide, regardless of whether that candidate won in their state."

I've explained (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/11/sox36.html) over and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/10/36qa.html) again why doing away with the electoral college would be very stupid and bad for Colorado.

Unfortunately, the Denver Post has sacrificed clarity for cuteness with its headline: "Bill 'popular' enough to get 1st panel's OK." Very funny word play; I'm rolling. Nevertheless, the measure lost in a popular vote in 2004 by (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_36) nearly two to one.

I am tempted to mention how idiotic the Democrats are for pushing this sort of nonsense, but then I remember the Republicans...

Keep Asset Forfeiture Reforms

I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/stop-forfeiture-abuse.html) collected some of the key information about a bill that would gut the asset forfeiture reforms of 2002. (See also the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/around-colorado-march-5-2009.html) update.)

Now Ed Quillen of the Denver Post has (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11847876) weighed in:

[T]he government could also attempt to take the house in civil court... even if [the criminal suspect] was acquitted. That's "civil asset forfeiture." ...

Obviously, this procedure is ripe for abuse, and in 2002 Colorado adopted a law to prevent such abuses. It requires a criminal conviction before forfeiture, and protects innocent property owners whose tenants commit crimes. It requires forfeiture proceeds to go through the regular budget process, rather than to the policing agency. It has reporting requirements.

In other words, our current law allows asset forfeiture as a legitimate tool of law enforcement, but makes the process fair and open.

But apparently, it doesn't bring in enough money, and thus House Bill 1238, sponsored by Joe Rice, a Littleton Democrat, would repeal the requirement for a conviction as well as the reporting requirement. In other words, it allows cops to seize property on mere suspicion and auction it off, with a big chunk of the profits going to the "seizing agency."

Hey, why pay taxes to support police departments when they can finance themselves this way? And why bother with the burdens of convicting someone in criminal court when you can just grab his assets through a civil procedure, where there's no right to counsel and no protection against self-incrimination?

Applied vigorously, HB 1238 could enhance revenues without raising taxes, and I can't think of any other reason that this legislature would even consider such an assault on a quaint, old-fashioned concept like "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Jerry Kopel has also blasted the measure in an (http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/03/08/editorial/doc49b32d3f8f1ab094148867.txt) article for the Pueblo Chieftain: "We should not go back to a system that made police and district attorneys look like pirates out for loot instead of providing enforcement of criminal justice standards."

Energy Crisis Looms

The Obama administration, along with Democratic leaders in Colorado, seem determined to forcibly restrict the production of real energy (coal, oil, natural gas) while lathering fantasy energy (windmills, solar panels) with corporate welfare. If these trends continue, the result will be phenomenally more expensive energy for our homes and cars and a "fantasy energy economy" essentially controlled by politicians. (I'm all for alternative sources of energy, provided that people adopt them voluntarily in a free market.)

Nancy Lofholm begins her recent (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11848266) article for The Denver Post: "The number of rigs drilling for natural gas and oil in Colorado has plunged 46 percent in the past year—one of the steepest declines in the country." Obviously broader economic trends are a factor.

Meanwhile, Vincent Carroll (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11847871) points out, "At the very moment Obama is poised to direct waves of subsidies into forms of renewable energy that account for a minuscule slice of the nation's electricity, he would strip oil and natural gas producers of incentives to drill."

But, again, a huge part of the problem is that the federal and state governments own most of the land from which energy is drawn. And so decisions are made not by private land holders, environmental groups that buy up conservation lands, and civil courts defending real property rights: decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats.

The Denver Business Journal (http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/03/02/daily67.html?ana=e_du_pap) reports:

Colorado lawmakers Friday heard testimony on proposed oil and gas rules that energy leaders say are turning the screws on one of Colorado's largest industries.

The regulations are intended to reduce the environmental impact from drilling by requiring oil and gas operators to keep compliance checklists and confer with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on minimizing the effect of drilling on wildlife. The regulations also set stricter standards on crude oil storage.

On a free market, land owners would have the incentive to balance land uses. Typically oil firms would look for side revenues from recreational use, and environmental groups would look for side revenues from energy production. But today we have a system in which wildlife rules are twisted to environmental ends in order to force down energy production.

Ah, but might not the environmental rules (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=3534) make Colorado more desirable for tourists? Sure, we'll make up the revenues by catering to hunters and the like. Right. Leaving aside the fact that there's limited inherent conflict between energy production and recreation use. Of course, if people can't afford to travel here due to high energy prices...

End Beer Protectionism

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/good-beer-needs-no-political-force.html) argued, current law that restricts grocery store sales of beer are protectionist, and they are wrong. But now the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists) "Baptists" have trotted out another (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=3532) ludicrous argument for protectionism:

One contention they have is that the bill would allow grocery store workers and convenience store workers who are under the age of 21 to be able to sell full-strength beer.

Clerks at liquor stores must be at least 21, they point out.

"The bill weakens rules aimed at keeping alcohol out of the hands of underage drinkers," said Sen. Lois Tochtrop, an Adams County Democrat.

"This will double the number of outlets selling full strength beer," said Kory Nelson, a Denver city attorney who prosecutes stores that sell to underage customers. Emphasizing that he was speaking only for himself, he said in the press release: "There will be beer sliding out the back door and slipping through the cash registers. It will mean kids selling beer to kids."

I cannot offer the most apt description of these protectionist claims, as I have a policy against swearing. So let me say only that the cited arguments are stupid.

Grocery stores already sell 3.2 beer; why would sales of other types of beer pose any greater problems? Other states already allow grocery store sales, and apparently the sky has not fallen there.

Nelson's argument seems to be that grocery store employees will steal beer from the stores in order to sell it black market. And yet, for some reason, grocery stores are willing to take that risk, perhaps because they realize that Nelson's claims are moronic. What a stooge.

Grocery store employees are just as likely to steal 3.2 beer, cigarettes, and cold medicine (which can be used to produce methamphetamine). Yet we don't outlaw grocery store sales of those items.

I agree that the government plays a legitimate role in keeping stores from selling certain dangerous items to minors, on the grounds that minors are still under the care of a guardian and have not acquired the maturity to engage in certain transactions. But such police actions can never justify violating the rights of stores to sell lawful products to adults.

Protectionism "for the children" just doesn't fly.

Contraception 'Medically Acceptable'

March 11, 2009

It is unbelievable that we're even having (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=3505) this discussion:

[Colorado] Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, introduced the measure [Senate Bill 225] to protect birth control from being banned by amendments to the constitution. Of most recent concern was a ballot initiative last year that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person in the state constitution. Coloradans overwhelmingly rejected the initiative.

Critics had pointed out that there could have been unintended consequences to the measure, such as banning birth control.
The theory was that because birth control alters the lining of the uterus where a fertilized egg would be implanted, routine birth control could have been made illegal.

Boyd's measure would prevent birth control from being banned by amendments by defining contraceptive or contraception as a "medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy."

Two Republicans wanted to change the word "pregnancy" to "contraception," which would open the door to bans on all forms of birth control, such as the pill, which may act to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus (as (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) discussed).

Why are we even debating whether contraception is "medically acceptable?" It obviously is. Do we really need the state's constitution to state as much? Should the constitution also point out that aspirin and eye glasses are "medically acceptable?" More to the point, would Boyd approve of an abortion ban that nevertheless allowed people to use birth control?

Boyd's exercise is pointless. If the faith-based anti-abortion crowd wants to ban birth control that may prevent implantation, it will simply propose to change Boyd's language. Boyd should focus her energies on defending the right to get an abortion, not playing semantic games around the margins.

Wage Controls Cause Unemployment

March 11, 2009

Apparently Congressman Jared Polis is (http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=699ADBBA593B074979AB51EB156520B0?diaryId=9051) now a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would encourage more unionization by replacing the secret ballot with the non-secret "card check" process for demanding unionization. ["[T]he legislation would eliminate employers' right to insist that workers hold a secret-ballot election, while retaining the option for workers," Colorado Media Matters breathlessly (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200903100002) clarifies, because we all know that the real motivation of union bosses is to "retain the option" to let employees vote by secret ballot.] Notably, the measure would amend the National Labor Relations Act, or Wagner Act, a law that significantly contributed to the economic downturn of 1937 and 1938 (as (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirota-new-deal-and-wage-controls.html) discussed.)

The basic issue is fairly straight-forward: federally encouraged unionization acts as a type of wage control, artificially boosting the monetary wages of some at the cost of lower wages and more unemployment for others.

As George Reisman (http://georgereisman.com/blog/2009/01/falling-prices-are-antidote-to.html) explains, people acting on a free market adjusts to deflation by cutting prices and (nominal) wages, which gets the economy moving and sets the stage for gains in real wages. Full employment is necessary for full production: people who are out of work aren't producing goods and services.

A major problem with U.S. auto manufacturers is that unionization has seriously damaged the competitiveness of the U.S. industry. That's a big reason why tax payers are now asked to subsidize car makers, when many struggling firms should go into bankruptcy.

The fact that the U.S. struggles under wage controls—and seems set to add more of them—means that the economy cannot readily adjust to deflation. Another consequences is that the federal government has put the nation at risk of serious inflation by expanding the money supply.

(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11886893) As of January, the unemployment rate in Colorado was 6.6 percent, compared to 8.1 percent nationally. This is a big problem, though of course nothing like the unemployment rates during the Great Depression. As (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/sirotas-statistics-fail-to-vindicate.html) noted, even by the most optimistic figures unemployment never fell below 9 percent from the end of Hoover's term through FDR's first two terms.

A period of rising unemployment is the worst possible time for more severe wage controls.

Bishops Bag Technology for Lent

March 12, 2009

(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11833691) "Roman Catholic bishops in Italy are urging the faithful to go on a high-tech fast for Lent, switching off modern appliances from cars to iPods and abstaining from surfing the Web or text messaging until Easter."

Traditionally Lent is about self-sacrifice—giving up the things we enjoy—in order to commiserate with Jesus, who spent 40 days fasting. These new trends in Lent also have a more overtly political message.

For example, the Modena diocese "seeks to draw attention to years of conflict in Congo fueled in part by the struggle for control of coltan mines. The mineral is an essential material in cell phones," the AP reports. I'm not familiar with that conflict, but clearly turning off one's cell phone won't make any difference. What is needed is a defense of property rights and the rule of just law, not some anti-technology stunt.

Other aspects of the new Lent have a distinctly environmentalist twist, such as taking mass transit or recycling. So now Christians are supposed to sacrifice, not only for God, but for the environmentalist agenda. This is another indicator of the convergence of religion and environmentalism. Self-sacrifice is a key element of both movements, so theirs is a natural alliance.

The only thing I'm giving up for Lent is self-sacrifice.

Comment by Ryan: I never sacrificed anything for Lent. At most, I made a half-hearted attempt to give up sweets, but that was mostly for prudent health reasons. I don't think even then I understood the self-sacrificial theme of Lent.

Time to Bring Beer Sales to Ballot

March 12, 2009

It is a classic case of cowardly, unprincipled, anti-freedom legislators pandering to "concentrated interests" at the expense of justice and the dispersed populace.

Grocers have the right—the right—to sell products of their choice, including regular beer, to willing buyers (who are adults). And consumers have the right to shop for the goods and services of their choice from willing sellers. That is, grocers and their customers have the right to freely exchange goods on mutually agreeable terms.

Yet Colorado law violates this right of free exchange by restricting grocery store sales (except for a single store of a chain) to low-alcohol beer, which only weenies drink. The law is wrong, it is protectionist in nature (meaning that it protects special interests at the expense of select merchants and consumers), and in the name of justice and liberty it must be overturned.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/04/ritter-signs-blue-law-repeal.html) Last year the legislature overturned the law banning Sunday liquor sales at stores. Some liquor stores went along in the hopes that they'd pick up more business. But the justification of the law—and many politicians and reporters are confused on this matter—was not any impact it might have had on overall sales. The justification of the law was that it expanded liberty and protected individual rights, in however small a way.

Now it is time to complete the repeal of Prohibition.

If (http://www.fermentarium.com/content/view/300/56/) 38 other states can allow the sale of normal beer in grocery stores, why does anyone think the sky will fall in Colorado if the unjust restriction is repealed?

First beer brewers, teaming up with liquor stores for the protectionist racket, argued that the protectionist legislation expands the number of beers sold. I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/good-beer-needs-no-political-force.html) pointed out that, first, the argument is likely false, as grocery stores would offer an expanded market to many breweres, and, second, that the argument is irrelevant, because sellers and buyers have the right to sell whatever products they want on mutually agreeable terms.

Then the protectionists joined with the social activists to argue that protectionism is needed "for the children." I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/around-colorado-march-10-2009.html) answered that protecting minors does not require and does not justify violating the rights of adults. Besides, beer sales would be at least as tightly monitored at grocery stores as they are at liquor stores.

Thankfully, the forces of freedom are not backing down. The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11892956) reports:

Bill sponsor Rep. Buffie McFadyen, who delivered 66,000 signatures from shoppers favoring expanded strong-beer sales, said she thinks the issue could end up on the 2010 ballot.

"And they will certainly want to include more than just beer," said McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, hinting that wine and spirits could be included in a future initiative.

Of course, restrictions on liquor store food sales should also be lifted.

Though the Post claims the bill was defeated by a 7-4 vote in committee, the legislature's page reports that House Bill 1192 was killed in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee killed the bill on March 11 by a vote of 8-3. (I called the capitol to verify this.) Following is a list of legislators who voted for and against, again according to the legislative web page. (The vote was whether to "postpone indefinitely," or kill the bill, so a "Yes" vote was a vote to kill the bill.)

For Liberty, Against Protectionism
David Balmer, Republican, Arapahoe
Larry Liston, Republican, El Paso
Edward Casso, Democrat, Adams

Against Liberty, For Protectionism
Laura Bradford, Republican, Mesa
Sara Gagliardi, Democrat, Jefferson
Kevin Priola, Republican, Adams
Su Ryden, Democrat, Arapahoe
Christine Scanlan, Democrat, Eagle, Lake, Summit
John Soper, Democrat, Adams
Amy Stephens, Republican, El Paso
Joe Rice, Democrat, Arapahoe, Jefferson

So Republicans on the committee voted against the measure by 3-2, while Democrats voted against it 5-1, even though McFadyen, the bill's sponsor, is a Democrat. On net, both parties continue their hostility to property rights and freedom of association. (The Denver Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/03/09/daily55.html) reports that "several legislators said that while they agree that the state's liquor-sales laws need reform, they felt it should come in comprehensive fashion, not just in a piecemeal bill that benefits grocery and convenience stores." But when is more liberty ever a bad thing?)

It is time for the people of Colorado to take back their liberty.

Comment by BierGirl: Well put! I have been bloging on this issue as well and I came to a similar conclusion. These lawmakers were too scared to do the right thing and in my opinion that's an offense worthy of "firing".

Comment by Dave Barnes: No rules at all, except for one.
You must be tall enough to put the money on the counter in order to buy.

Comment by Ari: I support a common age of adulthood (18) for all adult rights: marriage, contracts, military service, and alcohol.

Comment by Bier Girl: Nice shout out for Ari on at 9news Online today in their coverage of the capitol beer smash.

GOP Gives Ground on Abortion

March 14, 2009

Marilyn Musgrave, who lost her last congressional election (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) largely because of angst over her faith-based politics, has a new job, the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_11900761) reports.

She will lead a "Susan B. Anthony List" project to try to defeat pro-choice candidates: "We're going into districts where individuals are vulnerable... We're going to use every possible means to make sure that people know the voting records of these individuals."

I think this a great idea, as it continues to demonstrate the priorities of the religious right, which have nothing to do with preserving liberty and everything to do with destroying it.

(http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_11909770) Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has come out as a weak-kneed pro-choicer. Following is part of the (http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2009/03/the-reconstruct.html) transcript between Steele and GQ magazine:

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

Absolutely!

So Steele is trying to please both sides by throwing the matter to the states. But the reason that abortion is properly "an individual choice" is that women (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) have the right to get an abortion, because they have the right to control their own bodies. Thus, citizens of a state do not have the right, and should not have the "individual choice," to vote away the right to get an abortion.

The entire point of American government is to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

Still, Steele's comments indicate at least that some Republican leaders are prepared to slowly back away from the faith-based politics of the religious right.

Beer Smash Protests Protectionism

March 14, 2009

This morning some friends and I hosted a media conference in Denver to advocate freedom in beer sales and to protest beer protectionism. Earl Allen, who spoke at the event along with Amanda Teresi and Dave Williams (and me), put together a YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edp-CVQsL1c

Here's the release I sent out yesterday:

ISSUE: Allow Grocery Sales of Real Beer, End Protectionism

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: Smashing Beer Bottles to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales

WHEN AND WHERE: West Steps, Colorado Capitol, 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 13

SPEAKERS:

Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com

Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty on the Rocks

Dave Williams, president of the Gadsden Society

Additional speakers pending [Earl Allen became the fourth speaker]

"Grocery stores have a right to sell regular beer to consenting adults, and beer drinkers have the right to shop at stores of their choice. By killing Bill 1192 Wednesday, the legislature maintained unjust protectionism at the cost of individual liberty, property rights, and freedom of association," said Ari Armstrong.

Armstrong will smash beer bottles from Colorado brewers who endorsed protectionism. The event will feature appropriate measures for safety and cleanup, so no beer or glass will be left on state property.

"The protectionists are smashing our liberty, so it's only appropriate that we smash their beer," Armstrong said.

Brewers who opposed 1192, thereby endorsing protectionism, include the following:

(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_11892045) Bristol Brewing Co.

(http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/03/09/daily55.html) Del Norte Brewing Company

(http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/11/carlson-axing-32-a-blow-to-beer-lovers/) Colorado Brewers Guild

I do think it's a mistake to think that the (http://www.coloradobeer.org/) Brewer's Guild necessarily speaks for all its members. I don't mean to suggest that Bristol and Del Norte are the only or primary offenders; they're just the ones I learned about. (Bristol's oatmeal stout is spectacular, by the way, so I was especially pained to break bottles of that.)

I support Colorado's beer and wine industry, and I have (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=482) supported the freedom of brewers to produce and sell their products. Beer and wine producers, above all other businesses, should understand the devastating power of political intervention. Their industry was legally squashed for years in this nation. So why do some brewers support using political force to squash certain business transactions now? They should know better.

Other things equal, I'd prefer to buy my beer from producers who stand up for freedom rather than trample individual rights. So if anybody knows of any Colorado brewers who opposed the protectionist measures restricting grocery beer sales (or that even took an officially neutral position), please let me know, and I'd be happy to promote those brewers and go out of my way to buy beer from them.

I support liberty, and I try to support businesses that support liberty.

(http://www.thedenverchannel.com/index.html) 7 News broadcast the event live just after 11:00 a.m. CBS4 also published a (http://cbs4denver.com/local/protestors.beer.bottles.2.958702.html) story on the event, as (http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=111745) did 9News.

Blogger Richard Combs (http://rgcombs.blog-city.com/313_beer_smash.htm) writes, "I agree completely with Ari that this is unjust protectionism, and that the State of Colorado should long ago have abandoned this vestige of prohibitionism... But… the idea of smashing perfectly good, drinkable bottles of beer just disturbs me deeply."

I hear you, my friend, but what's truly disturbing is the political smashing of our liberties.

I'm going to end my evening, of course, with a beer, and a toast to liberty.

The Limits of Darwin

March 15, 2009

Father Jonathan Morris (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/11/father_jonathan_darwin/) argues quite correctly that evolutionary theory does not, by itself, prove or disprove the existence of God. Likewise, the natural sciences of electricity (which provided a naturalistic explanation of lightning) and geology (which provided a naturalistic explanation of large-scale formations) do not, by themselves, prove or disprove the existence of God.

The matter of theology rests on philosophy, not on any natural science, though of course the findings of natural science can buttress the case. (Even or especially theologians grant that evolution makes it easier to believe that natural forces, rather than divine intervention, created life.)

Unfortunately, Morris also errs in outlining the implications of Darwin when he writes that "scientists of evolutionary theory must avoid Darwin's pitfall of making definitive philosophical or theological statements about the absolute randomness of the natural world."

Evolution does not imply metaphysical randomness; it instead properly rests on a basis of natural law, meaning that things act according to their natures.

Morris is here sneaking in a metaphysical dualism—stuff versus order—that presumes supernaturalism and "intelligent design." He is thus just as guilty of making up implications of evolutionary theory as are those he criticizes.

Comment by Harold: It's not hard to see why the fact that evolution doesn't prove or disprove the existence of some divine entity is nonetheless such a frequent topic of discussion for these mystics. Evolution (biology) speaks with factual authority to the nature of our origins in a way that other fields (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.) can't. It did serious, irreparable damage to their faith-based views on the creation of our species. And now with their butts to the wall, they want to talk about "compromise" and "recognizing boundaries" and so on. Sure.

(Don't) Lie to Me

March 15, 2009

On a friend's recommendation, my wife and I started watching Lie to Me, the new (http://www.fox.com/lietome/) Fox show starring Tim Roth. Last night we watched through the sixth episode, the latest one. I really like this show.

The premise is that Roth's character (Cal Lightman) and his colleagues are experts at reading emotional expressions. A smile, a hand gesture, a shrug reveals the truth—or a lie. Lightman's firm hires itself out to government agencies, corporations, and individuals who need to get to the bottom of something, be it a criminal allegation or doubt of a book's authenticity. One of the show's fun gimmicks is to compare the expression of a character with that of a famous person—Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George Bush, O. J. Simpson—to indicate the universality of some expressions.

The show is "based on the real-life scientific discoveries of (http://www.paulekman.com/) Paul Ekman," a psychologist who studies emotional responses. The show also has obvious moral implications: it shows that lying in a misguided attempt to gain values pits one against reality and causes internal conflicts (a lesson I also learned the hard way when I was young and dumb).

The show's big challenge is that its actors must convincingly mimic expressions of deception and of truth. This is sometimes done awkwardly or too obviously. It also points to a limitation of the psychology: if actors can mimic these expressions, can't real liars do it, too, at least sometimes?

Thankfully, Lie to Me does not present emotional detection as some sort of formula or as anything that is obvious. A person's uncoached, authentic responses can say a lot about the person's emotional state. But emotions are highly complex, and expressions of it are physical. So is a smooth forehead an indication of an emotion or of Botox? And detecting a lie, for instance, says little about what the person is lying about. Lightman is as much an investigator as he is a psychologist, and reading expressions is only his most obvious and specialized tool for getting to the truth.

One interesting point is that Lightman sometimes lies to his subjects in order to provoke emotional responses, pointing to the legitimate distinction between dishonesty and the broader category of deception. (One need not tell the truth to a criminal wanting to know the location of his would-be victim, for instance.)

So, while Lie to Me presents some interesting paradoxes of deception, its broader theme is the power of honesty.

Brook on Atlas Shrugged Sales

March 15, 2009

Sales of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged are off the charts.

In an (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698976776126461.html) article for the Wall Street Journal, Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, explains the obvious reason and the deeper reason for this.

The obvious reason is that "Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations," something that is happening to our own economy to a degree.

But why was Rand able to project an economy in which these trends accelerated? It is because she was able to see the moral basis of political economic controls and the logical conclusions of those moral precepts. In short, Rand upheld rational self-interest and renounced self-sacrifice. Rand pointed out that rational self-interest, not sacrifice, is the true path to authentic love of (deserving) others, and that rational self-interest forbids exploiting others, whereas the morality of self-sacrifice demands it.

Thus, Brook explains:

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

Read the rest of (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698976776126461.html) Brook's article. And, if you have not yet read Rand's ground-breaking novel, now is the perfect time to do so.

40 Lashes for 75 Year Old for Meeting Men

March 16, 2009

Diana Hsieh (http://www.seculargovernment.us/blog/2009/03/justice-in-saudi-arabia.shtml) pointed to (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/09/saudi.arabia.lashes/?iref=hpmostpop) this absolutely repulsive news story: "A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old Syrian woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment and deportation from the kingdom for having two unrelated men in her house, according to local media reports."

Part of the obscenity of this case is that such vicious rules are enforced by the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the sole purpose of which is to punish virtue and promote vice and injustice.

The court also sentenced the two men to severe punishment, though apparently an appeal is possible on the grounds that one of the men was "her son through breastfeeding." (The mere fact that such a legal pretext is necessary only illustrates the inhumanity of the rules.)

The "religion of peace" strikes yet again.

Not only the Saudi government, but every Muslim who does not publicly and loudly declare the moral obscenity of this court decision deserves moral condemnation.

Supreme Court Approves Property Tax Without Vote

March 16, 2009

Steven Paulson of the AP (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11924050) reports, "The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a property tax measure expected raise $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years."

This tax increase was imposed despite the clear language of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which requires voter approval for tax increases.

Several Republicans immediately blasted the court's ruling.

Cory Gardner said, "The Colorado Supreme Court is the most partisan court in the United States; today's decision shows a blatant disregard for the Colorado Constitution and the taxpayers of this state who simply want to be asked first before they are taxed. Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey just managed to make Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like a conservative."

Josh Penry said:

It's fitting that the most partisan court in the land rubber stamped the governor's property tax increase on exactly the same day Senate Democrats are poised to repeal Colorado's landmark spending limits, and exactly two weeks after the Governor signed the largest increase in car taxes in a generation.

With loyalist Democrats in charge of the Governor's mansion, the state House, the state Senate, and the Supreme Court, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights is on life support and the principle of fiscal restraint is in full retreat.

Unfortunately for citizens, this property tax hike comes at the worst possible time—the moment when many Coloradans are struggling just to keep their homes.

Apparently the Democrats have grown weary of controlling Colorado government, as they have now handed the Republicans a real campaign issue for next year.

DNA Samples Before Conviction?

March 16, 2009

David Williams sent out the following media release, which I pass along as interesting information. I still need to think more carefully about this issue before reaching a definitive opinion, but the default position is that collecting people's DNA before they have been convicted of any crime is pretty scary territory. (Note that I do not endorse the Libertarian Party.)

Backlash against costly government DNA database builds

March 16, 2009 Denver—Colorado Senate Bill 09-241, which would mandate the use of government force to take DNA samples from innocent citizens, made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-1 margin on March 11, 2009. A wide range of groups have joined together to fight this un-American bill, which would cost taxpayers over $1.7 million to implement.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado, the Colorado ACLU, the Gadsden Society, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and the Colorado Public Defenders Office, among others, all oppose this costly Orwellian expansion of government power over innocent Americans.

David K. Williams, Jr., Legislative Director for the Libertarian Party and President of the Gadsden Society is among those against the bill.

"The backers of this bill claim it will help law enforcement. Undoubtedly it would," Williams said. "So would the repeal of the Fourth Amendment. So would micro chipping newborns so the government knows where they are all at times, from cradle to grave. So would putting video cameras in every house.

"The point is that helping law enforcement is not the only concern Americans should have. Protecting the Constitution and preventing government abuse of power should also be a concern of all Americans."

The next stop for the bill is the Senate Appropriations Committee, where a hearing date has not yet been set. If the Appropriations Committee decides it is a good idea to spend $1.7 million of taxpayer money to implement the proposed DNA database, the bill would move to the floor of the Senate for debate.

Senator Morgan Carroll (D—Aurora) was the lone "no" vote in the Judiciary Committee.

Resources

(http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/A33C46D1F9F4F2EC87257553007F530D?Open&file=241_01.pdf) SB 09-241 language

(http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2009a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/A33C46D1F9F4F2EC87257553007F530D?Open&file=SB241_00.pdf) SB 09-241 Fiscal Impact note

(http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersSenate?openFrameset) SB 09-241 Senate Judiciary Committee Roll Call vote

About the Gadsden Society

The Gadsden Society is a non-partisan public advocacy group, fighting for the preservation and expansion of individual liberty throughout Colorado. The Gadsden Society monitors bills pending in the state legislature and advocates on behalf of legislation that expands individual liberty and opposes legislation that contracts individual liberty.

Contact information

David K. Williams, Jr.
President, The Gadsden Society

L. Neil Smith Serializes Ceres

March 17, 2009

Colorado science-fiction author L. Neil Smith has written a new novel called Ceres, a sequel to Pallas, my favorite novel of his. (Actually he wrote the novel some time ago, but it is just now coming out.)

Big Head Press (http://www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?page_id=53) is serializing the novel online.

The story takes place on a terraformed asteroid. "Chapter Zero" begins to reveal the life of a young woman devoted to ice skating, which on a low-gravity asteroid is a rather different sport. With Smith, we can count on heavy doses of action and intrigue as the story progresses.

Condoms Increase AIDS?

March 17, 2009

Not only do condoms not limit the spread of AIDS in Africa, the Pope (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509488,00.html) claims, but condom distribution "increases the problem."

Huh.

Apparently the reason for this is that condom distribution encourages sex, and some of those encouraged to have sex will either not use a condom or contract AIDS despite condom use.

Of course, that doesn't explain the rise of AIDS prior to condom distribution. Obviously condom distribution was a response to the problem, not the cause of the problem.

I don't know much about the spread of AIDS in Africa, but I get the idea that it largely has to do with sexual irresponsibility, rooted in mystical beliefs and primitive machismo. Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999190,00.html) writes of a "wife... branded a whore when she asked her husband to use a condom, beaten silly and thrown into the streets."

So let us grant that condoms are not anything like a comprehensive solution to the problem. Does the Pope seriously believe that Catholic abstinence will fare better?

What is needed is not cultural relativism that dares not criticize African cultural forces that contribute to AIDS (and many other ills), nor faith-based calls to forsake sex. Instead what is needed is a cultural movement that emphasizes reason and ethical views consonant with life on earth, including healthy sex.

Comment by Anonymous: To fight against the use of condoms is the fight against common sense. To the extent that people already engage in sexual activitices, condoms can hardly be seeen as exascerbating the problem. I think the real issue is to teach responsible sexual behavior. Preaching abstinence is an anachronism that's out of touch with reality. You can find more of this perspective at: http://www.ricoexplainsitall.com/politcs-economy/2009/3/20/sex-and-the-vatican-city.html

Concealed Carry for County Employees?

March 17, 2009

The following article originally was published on March 16, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Rowland suggests county employees carry concealed handguns

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently County Commissioner Janet Rowland suggested that county employees might carry concealed handguns to improve security at the old county courthouse.

Our friends at the Daily Sentinel said in a March 2 editorial that her "shoot-from-the-hip solution" "deserves to be shot down." We retort that the editorial is way off target.

We're still not sure Rowland has forgiven us for our 2006 column razzing her for wondering if gay marriage might open the door to allowing "a man to marry a sheep." However, we point out, if sheep could handle defensive weapons, the wolves might not be so eager to attack.

The Sentinel doubts that concealed guns would have helped in a recent event: "An angry county resident confronted a clerk in the county administration area of the old courthouse and made the clerk feel threatened. If the clerk had a concealed-carry permit, would... she have drawn her weapon and commanded, 'On the floor, dirtbag. You're out of line!' to the angry resident?"

Obviously the Sentinel's editorial writers need a first-time or refresher course on defensive firearms. One draws a concealed gun only when in mortal danger. A county employee who behaved as the Sentinel suggests would be fired (or worse).

Your elder author, an employer for many years, learned quickly that employees bring their backgrounds to work with them. Those trained in defensive firearm use are not only better shots, they are better able to handle all sorts of emergency situations appropriately, almost always without involving a gun.

Somebody who mortally threatens another usually believes he can overpower his victim. What concealed carry does is give the victim a chance to be something other than a defenseless sheep.

Nearly forty percent of the students in firearms classes in the Grand Valley are women. Many are single moms, many are divorced, many travel alone on the highways, many have husbands who must leave town for work. The women taking firearms classes have their own reasons.

According to Pinkerton surveys of corporate security professionals, homicide is a leading cause of workplace deaths, particularly for women. In most cases women murdered at work are victims of someone other than current or former romantic partners. Even more women are beaten, raped, or assaulted on the job.

Outside of work, some women are threatened or stalked by former boyfriends or spouses. People who carry a concealed gun to and from work do so for their own safety and protection. Once at work, locking the firearm in the car may not be the best way to safely secure or store the firearm. For somebody facing a real and known threat, what does the potential victim do walking to and from their vehicle?

We seem to have forgotten that a few dollars' worth of box cutters killed over three thousand Americans. The next time you are at work, sitting at your desk, think of the items within arm's reach that could be used as weapons. Pens and pencils. Large paper weights and other blunt objects. Sharp edges and corners. Broken glass. Fists. No metal detector is going to stop all "weapons" from coming into any workplace.

No, we're not trying to promote paranoia. Most of us will never be brutally attacked. Yet we buy life insurance even when we don't expect to keel over. Most of us do not think twice about putting our seat belt on when we enter our automobiles. We just feel safer with the safety belt on, though none of us plans on getting into an auto accident. Many who carry concealed handguns feel the same way.

Picture yourself on the floor with some guy's hands around your throat, choking the life out of you. We imagine the most comforting words you could possibly hear at that moment might come from the petite grandmother who has shared your office for the last ten years, as she draws her concealed gun and commands the attacker, "On the floor, dirtbag. You're out of line!"

All businesses, not just the county court house, should be concerned about security. Even the Sentinel has taken a closer look at the matter, as is obvious if you approach the business's front desk.

Unfortunately, many employers think first of purchasing stuff rather than training employees. Most businesses can't install metal detectors, and we're not sure they'd do much good even at the court house.

Some Colorado State agencies spend the time and money to train their employees in defensive firearms use. Your elder author has worked with Alon Stivi of Direct Measures to provide some of that training. Stivi points out that the goal is two-fold: to reduce the chances of becoming involved in a dangerous situation, and "to respond to violence or security threats without putting yourself at even greater risk."

Rowland may not know much about sheep, but at least she's thinking seriously about how to prevent government employees from falling prey to the wolves.

CO Brewers Should Endorse Liberty

March 18, 2009

Last Friday, I helped to organize a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/beer-smash-protests-protectionism.html) "beer smash" protest against beer protectionism. I joined other speakers in making the case for free markets in beer sales. Right now Colorado grocers are legally forbidden from selling regular beer to consenting adults.

A Monday (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=3618) story from the Denver Daily News quoted me and another like-minded fellow:

"Competition is competition," said John G., who wouldn't disclose his last name. "If liquor stores can't compete with the big bucks stores, then that's just the nature of capitalism."

Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com, is a vocal advocate of getting a version of HB 1192 on the Nov. 2010 ballot. The Web site publisher staged an event at the Capitol on Friday where he smashed bottles in protest of the grocery limits, arguing that not allowing grocery stores to sell full strength beer is "using the force of the government to harm competitors and favor certain businesses."

"Protectionism is wrong," he said. "What we want instead of protectionism is a free market, where merchants and customers can come together voluntarily of their own choice and associate in the way that they deem best. What we need, in a word, is liberty."

During my brief talk, I also explained that Colorado's beer protectionism is endorsed by "an unholy alliance of special-interest groups." The first group is liquor stores, which stand to gain financially by legislatively damaging their competitors. The second group is (some) small brewers. The third group consists of "self-righteous moralists who think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to live our lives."

This newspaper line is particularly illustrative of the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists) "Bootleggers and Baptists" sort of special-interest convergence: "[T]he Colorado Licensed Beverage Association and others, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said teen convenience store clerks would possibly cave to peer pressure and start sneaking full-strength beer out to their friends."

I've addressed arguments about underage sales previously. Here I want to focus on the arguments of the brewers:

Brian Dunn, president of Great Divide Brewing Co., said consumers would likely have seen less variety of beer throughout Colorado as a result of House Bill 1192. He said large supermarket corporations would not stock as much variety as liquor retailers do, but that retailers would go out of business, leaving less variety on the shelves.

"One of the reasons that the beer is so good here is because the independently owned liquor stores are willing to carry a very wide variety of beer that is produced by the craft brewers," said Dunn. "That variety will be seriously hindered if this bill passes."

Colorado beer drinkers who favor economic liberty may want to note that Great Divide has added its name to the list of those pushing protectionism.

Dunn's argument is ridiculous. He is basically claiming that brewers will be hurt by having more merchants to sell their beer to.

Beer protectionism has nothing to do with the success of Colorado brewers. Instead, Colorado is known for its beer for two main reasons. First, Coloradans like good beer: they demand it and buy it. Second, as I've (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=482) mentioned, legislative changes in the 1980s allowed brewpubs to do business.

Beer Advocate (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/101/history_american_beer.php) notes about 1982—just a year after the Great American Beer Festival began in Colorado: "For the first time since prohibition, a brewery is allowed to open that not only sells its' beer at its' own bar on premises, but serves food to boot. In Bert Grant's Yakima Brewing and Malting Co., Inc., [in Washington] the Brew Pub is born." Obviously, such legal changes have a lot to do with the success of Colorado's brewing industry, while beer protectionism has nothing to do with it.

The fact is that Colorado brewers are in business today because protectionism against their industry was lifted. Now some of these same brewers hypocritically wish to impose similar protectionist policies on other merchants.

Is it true that brewers would have less of a market if grocery stores could sell beer? I grant that, while the figures put out by the liquor store industry strike me as fear-mongering, probably some liquor stores will close. But if they're only in business because they legislatively harm their competitors, they don't deserve to be in business. Liquor stores that offer genuine value to their customers, through better selection, better service, etc., will continue to thrive. Not only that, but many grocers will carry a large selection of craft beer.

I went to two local liquor stores yesterday. One carried four brands of Colorado beer; the other carried five. Both stores sold only a tiny fraction of available Colorado craft beers, and both stocked far more big-name and non-Colorado beer. This is typical of smaller liquor stores I've seen. No doubt at least some grocers would stock a larger selection of Colorado craft beer than those liquor stores stock. Larger liquor stores, on the other hand, feature a spectacular selection and would compete with grocery stores successfully on that basis.

Let us look to Arizona, where grocery stores sell beer, wine, and liquor. A search of liquor stores in Tucson hardly shows a dearth of them.

Meanwhile, an employee of the St. Mary's Safeway in Tucson told me, "We have quite a few off brands" from "all over America," including Sierra Nevada (California), New Belgium (Colorado), and Four Peaks (Arizona).

Protectionism artificially creates winners and losers by legislative fiat. Once that protectionism is removed, winners and losers will again be chosen by consumers on a free market. That makes for hard times for those who benefited from protectionism. But protectionism is unjust, and it harms consumers and select merchants.

Those favoring protectionism like to tell hysterical stories about what allegedly will happen once the protectionism is repealed. But the sky has not fallen in other states that lack such protectionism, and it will not fall in Colorado, either. A free market in beer sales will instead restore the right of free exchange and offer greater value to consumers.

Give us liberty in beer sales.

Comment by ALL: It's funny but I've found that as long as government exists, some people will always want government to intervene. In Drachten, NL for instance, Hans Monderman took out all traffic controls and since then there has been no accidents. However a select few groups, one for the elderly another for the blind say that they feel unsafe and that this is reason to put traffic controls back and have more accidents again. The people calling for traffic controls don't have anything to stand on other than there feeling of not being safe, even though they have been empirically shown to be safer. Most of these interventions by government in the US I fear start the same way, a unexplained fear of liberty as it leads to the perceived lack of safety of the spontaneous order.

Comment by Ari: Traffic lights are not a good example of government intervention. While it might be the case that, in a particular location, traffic lights don't do any good, that hardly proves that traffic lights in general are unnecessary. Especially on busy streets they obviously are necessary for smooth traffic flow. The deeper issue is that the government owns most roads, so the government must run them. If the roads were private, there would still be traffic lights.

Beer Smash Photos

March 18, 2009

Call it the Denver Beer Party. A friend who attended the March 13 "Beer Smash" sent in the photographs reproduced below. The event was to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales, particularly the right of grocers to sell regular beer to consenting adults. See my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/beer-smash-protests-protectionism.html) first write up and link to the YouTube video, then my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/co-brewers-should-endorse-liberty.html) follow-up based on comments from the Denver Daily News.

Denver channels 2, 4, 7, and 9 came out for the event.

Earl Allen, Ari Armstrong, Amanda Teresi, and David Williams spoke at the event. [Update August 16, 2025: Williams later went by "D. K." and died in 2021. Allen died in 2014.]

Justin Longo (at right) also helped with the logistics.

Notice the large plastic sheet and rags to contain the mess.

We interrupted the speeches to get to the beer smashing, as one of the stations was broadcasting live. Then Dave finished up his remarks and Earl argued that we should repeal this remaining vestige of Prohibition.

Hasta (la vista) Manana. (Manana was one of the beers I smashed.) It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Notice that the mess was contained within the plastic and rags. I did get a bit more splatter than I anticipated, so I carefully cleaned up the area using a damp rag. For good measure we also picked up additional trash, such as cigarette butts, left by others.

I thank my fellow freedom fighters for their help with the event.

Gay Old Party

March 19, 2009

(http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_11946031) This is fabulous: Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry—a name frequently tossed around for the governor's race—will speak to a Republican group at a gay bar in Denver next week. He told the Denver Post, "I don't care... I'm happy to speak to the (Denver Metro) Young Republicans at the venue they chose."

What's great about this is that the YRs chose the location not to make any sort of political statement, but simply for reasons of capitalism.

Thomas James, president of the Young Republicans, said the group chose Hamburger Mary's in Denver because "they have a suitable layout for a speaker-type event, and they have good food, a good location relative to downtown, and free parking nearby."

If the GOP can get friendly with homosexuals, and homosexuals can get friendly with capitalists, that will be a very good thing. It would at least be a huge improvement over Senator Scott Renfroe's (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/renfroe-should-resign-over-bigoted.html) bigoted remarks on the Senate floor.

In (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11947072) other Colorado news, Ted Haggard, the former mega-church preacher who has admitted to buying illegal drugs from a male prostitute, will appear on "Divorce Court" today with his wife. I thought for a second he might actually be getting a divorce, which would serve him right. Instead, his wife said, "This is part of Ted's journey. It's made him a better man. I see what has happened as a divine rescue."

Now I have the perfect line for the next time I irritate my wife. "But, hun, it's just part of my journey!"

Also, I saw Milk a few days ago, the film about the San Francisco gay activist and politician. I disagree with Milk on most political issues, except for his big ones: homosexuals should have the same rights as everybody else, including the right not to be harassed by the police. I find his story inspiring simply because of his dedication in the face of threats, slanders, and long odds.

Comment by Rob: From Marilyn Musgrave to Josh Penry. What a difference an election makes!

Bill 1984

March 19, 2009

I had occasion to meet State Senator Morgan Carroll, who said a few words against the bill that would require DNA samples before conviction, based merely on arrest for a suspected felony.

Officially the bill is known as "Colorado Senate Bill 09-241." The more appropriate name for it is Bill 1984, in honor of the (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/index.html) Orwellian world it would help bring about.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/dna-samples-before-conviction.html) Previously I wrote, "I still need to think more carefully about this issue before reaching a definitive opinion..." I have thought more carefully, and I have reached the definitive opinion that Bill 1984 deserves to go down in defeat, as surely as two plus two equals four.

As one of my friends explained to me, the bill would (among other things) create a perverse incentive for the police to arrest select individuals on some pretext, just to look at their DNA. We could call this "DNA fishing."

(http://coloradoindependent.com/24001/senate-panel-oks-katies-law-to-collect-dna-on-all-felony-arrests) Notably, and frighteningly, Carroll "wound up casting the lone vote against" the measure in Senate Judiciary.

The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_11900471) points out (in a typically vacillating editorial):

The results will be kept in a database unless the person is found not guilty, is convicted of a misdemeanor, or charges are dropped.

However, removing the DNA sample from law-enforcement databases is not automatic. ... The person whose DNA was taken has to, in some cases, get a notarized letter from the DA saying no felony charge was filed within the statute of limitations—which could go on for years. Or that person must get a certified copy of a court order saying the charge was dismissed.

In other words, the burden is on the accused, and it's significant.

Of course, by then the police have already run all the DNA checks they intended. Moreover, it is only a matter of time before some other legislator figures that allowing the innocent to remove their DNA information from the database is an undue burden on law enforcement.

The foundation of a just legal system is the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved. Yes, upon probable cause people may be arrested, held, and tried prior to a jury's finding of guilty or not guilty. But such restraints are justified only insofar as they are necessary for the resolution of the case. Violations of liberty beyond that are unjust.

Not everything goes in empowering law enforcement to solve crimes. No doubt the police could solve more cases if they were able to arrest people without cause, forcibly collect DNA samples of every newborn, implant everyone with computer chips, use torture, imprison people at will for any length of time, etc. But we don't allow those things, because they would corrode the very system of liberty and justice that we are trying to protect. For similar reasons, we should not allow DNA sampling prior to conviction.

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Don't Ship UPS with Recipient's Account

March 19, 2009

I learned a lesson the hard way about trying to ship something via UPS using the recipient's account information. The shipping cost around $50. The value of my wasted time far exceeded that.

The first UPS store refused to ship the package, on the pretext that they didn't have the appropriate forms. So I had to go home, call around till I found another store that would handle the job, then make a special trip.

But that store botched the billing information, so UPS sent me a bill that I received just today. So I had to waste yet more time calling UPS on the phone to have the billing handled correctly. However, I was sternly warned, if the recipient refused the shipping charges (though I had verified the account information and received prior authorization to use it) I would be billed the original amount plus an additional fee.

Well, I'd like to see UPS just try to collect a single red cent from me. UPS should be compensating me for my lost time.

I experienced a more general problem as well. Both the franchises I dealt with blamed all the problems on the central UPS, whereas the central UPS blamed all the problems on the independent franchises. The setup strikes me as the perfect arrangement for everyone to avoid responsibility.

In fairness, the local UPS shop has generally done well by me for services unrelated to UPS shipping, and the central UPS customer service has been pretty good. Just don't ship using the recipient's account number!

The Religious Fight Death

March 20, 2009

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509779,00.html) Here's a paradox: the "deeply religious" tend to fight death harder and "get aggressive treatment in their final days."

But don't the deeply religious believe that a magnificent paradise awaits them after death, an existence far happier and better than this life on earth? Sure, religions typically forbid suicide, but they don't require aggressive, expensive, and low-success medical treatment, either. So why aren't the deeply religious more ready, rather than less ready, to meet their deaths?

I think the answer is that some people become deeply religious because of their inordinate fear of death and inability to deal with it. That is, some people seek both religion and aggressive medical treatment for the same basic reason: they are deeply frightened of death.

Here's what one religious leader said:

The Rev. Percy McCray, director of pastoral care and social services for the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, said people of faith and their families "tend to want to extend their treatment and care as long as possible because often they are attempting to give God opportunity to perform a miracle."

"I have personally seen patients who were given bleak and grim prognoses surpass and survive such outlooks to live many months and years," he told Reuters in an e-mail.

"The down side can be the mental, emotional, and possible financial drain and anxiety that can build in a prolonged hospital stay," he said.

Obviously a positive mental attitude can contribute to physical health; this is not primarily a religious phenomenon. Ultimately, though, everybody dies, and the best mental attitude in the world cannot always prolong life.

But what about this point about miracles? Why would the deeply religious depend on aggressive medical treatments in order to "give God an opportunity to perform a miracle?" Wouldn't the deeply religious be more likely to expect a miracle sans the medicine? If God were truly keen on intervening miraculously, surely he would not need to rely on the latest and greatest medical gadgetry. Again this points to the conclusion that such people are driven to religion for the same reason they are driven to aggressive medicine: a fear of death.

Political Excess

March 20, 2009

(http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/03/16/daily56.html) "Members of Service Employees International Union and other activists gathered at noon Thursday outside Denver's Wells Fargo Center to protest what they called 'corporate excess' as part of dozens of demonstrations planned in 30 cities targeting large financial companies." The Denver Daily News also (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=3670) reported the story.

It is indeed an outrage that AIG and others are essentially paying huge bonuses with taxpayer dollars.

But wait just a minute: who is it that promoted this "corporate excess?" It was the union candidate, Barack Obama, who, along with his predecessor George W. Bush, promoted massive corporate bailouts. The fundamental problem is not corporate excess, but political excess. What we need is an end to all federal bailouts and all political controls of the economy.

The unions, too, contributed to this excess. Unjust union legislation is a big reason why American companies are not competitive, and why the auto industry in particular is failing. The union pressure for artificially higher wages is part of the reason why federal politicians acted to bail out corporations rather than let failing companies go bankrupt. So for the unions to now decry the very political interventions that they helped bring about is absurd and hypocritical.

I have plenty of criticisms of the Ludwig von Mises Institute—which hardly remains true to the ideas of its namesake—but recently the organization published a (http://blog.mises.org/archives/009620.asp) talk by Peter Schiff that goes a long way toward explaining the political excesses behind the irresponsibility of some American corporations. Schiff discusses how the Federal Reserve, first under Clinton and then under Bush, promoted a bubble economy through easy credit.

All the unions want to give us is more of the failed policies that created the economic crisis. Unions, insofar as they benefit from federal favoritism, are part of the problem. What we need is an end to political excess and a renewal of truly free markets.

Will Texas Endorse Creationism?

March 23, 2009

Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509719,00.html) reports:

A Texas legislator is waging a war of biblical proportions against the science and education communities in the Lone Star State as he fights for a bill that would allow a private school that teaches creationism to grant a Master of Science degree in the subject.

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) proposed House Bill 2800 when he learned that The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a private institution that specializes in the education and research of biblical creationism, was not able to receive a certificate of authority from Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board to grant Master of Science degrees.

Berman's bill would allow private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board's authority.

The bill presents a dilemma. The Texas board has a responsibility to ensure the legitimacy of degrees. Yet the government plays no proper role in either encouraging or discouraging religion or any religious doctrine.

The problem here is that the state legislature has absolutely no businesses endorsing, sanctioning, or funding any educational program. What the legislature funds, it necessarily monitors and directs. By getting involved in education, the government has automatically set itself up us an arbiter of intellectual disputes, including religious ones.

It is wrong for the Texas legislature to endorse the pseudo-science of Creationism. But it is also wrong for the Texas legislature to inhibit it. The only real solution is for government to stay out of education altogether. Until then, such conflicts will inevitably and routinely arise.

Let schools certify their degrees by whatever (nonfraudulent) means they wish—and let their students pay the price if they offer ridiculous degrees and fail to earn reputable certification.

Quillen Misses Atlas's Point

March 23, 2009

Ed Quillen, a columnist for the Denver Post whose work I often appreciate, recently (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11954784) wrote a snarky, misleading review of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. While his column illustrates—and perhaps helps contribute to—the continued popularity of the novel, his remarks could stand some improvement.

Quillen illustrates a common problem in interpreting the book. He says he read the book when he was 16, and apparently he hasn't read it since. Often kids read the novel without seriously understanding any of Rand's ideas or any of her literary subtlety, then, later, they complain that the book is juvenile based on their juvenile understanding of it. I too read Atlas Shrugged when I was around 16 or a bit older, but I didn't really get what she has to say until later in life. So read the novel as an older teen, and then read it again when you're 25, and perhaps again later on with Rand's other essays (the novel was published when Rand was 52, in 1957), and then write a newspaper column about it.

Quillen correctly indicates that the novel's plot is about what happens when, in the context of socialistic political controls of the economy, the producers go on strike. I've written about this (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/political-controls-provoke-producers-to.html) as well, with my dad. Rand describes the strike of the novel as a "fantastic premise" and a "hypothetical case." Indeed, she explicitly wrote that she didn't think it is time to go on strike. Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute, also (http://www.pjtv.com/video/PJTV_Daily/Is_Atlas_Shrugging%3F/1530/;jsessionid=abcwLXV6TxUNM7v1Ipras) said the appropriate move is not to go on strike, but to fight back intellectually. Furthermore, the novel is not just about the producers going on strike; it is about them paving the way to return to a world of reason and political liberty.

Yet, as Rand was aware, higher taxes and more political controls do discourage and impede productive effort and sometimes encourage people to quit their paying jobs, so her premise does have its roots in reality. Furthermore, in a fully totalitarian society, producers should go on strike, either by leaving the country or fighting back.

But of course, as Brook (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698976776126461.html) indicates, the real theme of the novel is not just that producers should quit working in the face of increasing political oppression. If that's all you get out of the novel, you're not actually reading it. Rather, Rand builds a case for rational self-interest, which neither exploits others nor subjects one's self to exploitation, leading to a life of reason and a morality suited for living a successful, prosperous life on earth.

Quillen suggests that Rand's philosophy is similar to that of Nietzsche, despite the fact that Rand explicitly denounced Nietzsche's philosophy as irrational and deterministic. For more on this, see Robert Mayhew's essay, "We the Living: '36 and '59," in Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living.

Next Quillen conflates the productive geniuses with those "trying to get their hands on even more public money." But Rand does not confuse independent producers with government moochers. Indeed, Atlas is filled with villains who are the sort of businessmen who seek political advantage, including the brother of the heroine, James Taggart.

Quillen argues that "there's little reason to worry about the withdrawal of some current Galt, since others might well be ready to step up to the plate." As evidence, he lists a few cases in which people independently came up with similar inventions. For instance, Leipniz invented the calculus along with Newton. But does Quillen seriously doubt that the world would be a different place, a worse place, had Newton never lived and contributed so much to physics, far beyond the discovery of calculus? What if both Leipniz and Newton had lived in the sort of world that crushed intellectual advancement?

Quillen then notes that he dislikes Microsoft, despite the fact that the company played a major role in the spread and development of the personal computer, and despite the fact that certain Microsoft products, such as Word, continue to be industry standards even on other platforms, including the Mac.

True, in any industry often a handful of individuals help build the industry. But a relatively small number of individuals built the modern computer industry, and our world would be a far different place without the likes of Steve Jobs, Stephen Wozniak, and Bill Gates. In many cases a single individual makes astounding advances that would not have been duplicated by others or that would have been delayed by decades if not centuries.

The question, then, is whether we want to build the sort of world that recognizes and rewards productive geniuses, and permits them the freedom to work according to their own judgment and reap the rewards of doing so, or a world that increasingly yokes producers with political controls, thereby impeding their progress.

Atlas Shrugged promotes a world of reason, rational self-interest, voluntary cooperation, progress, and liberty.

Comment by Tenure: You've hit it so wonderfully on the head. These people criticise from their own juvenile understanding of Atlas Shrugged. I think that's just such an essentialised, and incredibly important point.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: I, too, first read Atlas at the age of 16. I liked the book very much then, but I read it for the plot line and did not really consider the ideas. I read it again last summer, and then again in January of this year. I found I needed to read it twice in order to begin to appreciate the crafting of the book to make it an enjoyable read, as well as a book of ideas. The difference between my 16-year-old understanding and my 50 year-old understanding is very great. The book had more depth, better writing, and was much more subtle than I had remembered. An aside: A friend from New Jersey, who is my age, wrote my daughter (23) a note suggesting that she should not read Atlas or take the ideas seriously, because he had read 100 pages and had to put it down at the age of 18. She, being wiser than I was at her age, smiled to herself and had a copy shipped to him from Amazon.

Comment by Hates hoops: My first reading was at the age of 30 and I could not put the book down, through weary eyes and late nights. Just today I saw soybeans in the market and thought of the book. It made me think of the millions of Ukrainians that starved to death during record soviet grain harvests and how political control and mismanagement have killed so many. I believe the mark of a great book it makes you think long after you put it down. Foolishly I wish I could find that place in the mountains, but all I see is the rotting hulk of the Century Motor Corp.

TV Is Dead; Long Live TV

March 24, 2009

My wife and I have lived without a television set for some years. Yet we watch quite a few television programs online. Within the last couple weeks, we've watched the latest episode of Dollhouse at (http://www.hulu.com/) Hulu (and the sixth episode is the best yet), the first two episodes of Castle (starring another of Joss Whedon's stars, Nathan Fillion, in a pretty good show from ABC), and the pilots of Buck Rogers, The Incredible Hulk, and Airwolf, all three childhood favorites.

After we ditched our TV we relied largely on Netflix to watch television shows that had come out on disk. Just tonight we watched a classic movie, Time After Time (in which H. G. Wells chases Jack the Ripper to 1979), online through Netflix, which also offers many television shows online.

The local television news stations offer much of their video online as well. And of course individuals and organizations can make available video for practically no marginal cost through YouTube.

The online viewing quality is sometimes superb though sometimes jumpy (especially through Netflix). I get the idea, then, that the main trouble is with the software rather than with the bandwidth. (A note to TV stations: people won't be as willing to watch your shows if you make us download a bunch of BS "protection" software that screws with our machines.)

We've watched television shows on iTunes, but at $1.99 a pop we'd usually prefer to "pay" for our viewing by watching cheesy ads.

I am just stunned by the rapid progress of online video. I still remember watching Tron at my first VHS party. It was a huge, rented machine that popped open from the top, daring us to insert the video tape. (Tron came out in 1982, about a decade before the World Wide Web took off.)

Given the advantages of being able to watch the show I want to watch when I want to watch it, I don't see how the online video industry will do anything other than explode in growth. I don't need cable, I don't need specialized recording machines. I just need my Mac and my Comcast internet connection. (Comcast also offers cable TV, which I'm rarely tempted to purchase.)

I hate TV, but I love (some) television. I wonder how long it will take for the total integration of media.

Learning to Love the Denver Post

March 24, 2009

The Rocky Mountain News was my favorite newspaper in the entire world. I'm not saying it was the best in the world, but it was the best at covering my region. The only thing that mitigated the pain of its closing was that the event was anticipated for many weeks.

But then the Denver Post did something that surprised me, though it makes perfect sense: it hired some of my favorite writers from the Rocky, particularly Vincent Carroll.

Moreover, the Post's editorial board has seemed to put out better work since the closing of the Rocky. I don't know if this is just coincidence, some bias in my observations, the addition of Carroll, or some other factor.

But for a paper with a widely acknowledge leftward tilt, the Post's (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11979567) editorial of the day offers an outstanding defense of legislative sanity:

Mr. President, private companies that have not accepted federal bailout money are not yours to govern. That idea needs to be killed too. ...

Congress, in great haste, gave banks and other lending companies trillions of dollars in bailout money. Then, when passing President Obama's stimulus package—again, in great haste—Congress approved an amendment that allowed firms like AIG to accept big bonus payments.

Then, when AIG legally paid out its bonuses, Congress flipped out and, again, in great haste, overwhelmingly approved a 90 percent tax on the executives who earned bonuses.

And the 90 percent tax is not just applicable at AIG. The tax would be levied on executives at any financial institution that received bailout funds, including those banks, such as Wells Fargo, that didn't even want the money and were basically forced to take it. Stories have surfaced of profitable companies, whose parent companies received bailout money, where executives would be penalized with this burdensome tax.

I can quibble with other lines, but the heart of the editorial is an informative and spirited critique of overreaching government.

Also today, the Post published Carroll's (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11979568) article against single-payer health care. He concludes, "I'd rather see health-care reform nudge us in the direction of cost-conscious consumption—so that 'rationing' is more directly related to individual preferences and costs are driven down through provider competition."

Carroll doesn't quite go far enough—he complains that real reform is "a pipe dream in today's political climate," when actually it is journalists like Carroll who help create today's political climate. The unpopularity of a good idea is reason to argue for it all the more strongly, not surrender. Besides, the main problem with free-market health reform is not that it is unpopular, but that most people simply aren't aware of how political controls caused the current mess or how real market reforms would help solve the problems.

I'm sure I will continue to find my daily annoyances in the Denver Post. Still, I'm hopeful that the newspaper has improved and will continue to do so.

Endowed By Their Creator

March 25, 2009

Terence Jeffrey briefly (http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2009/03/25/mark_of_the_true_conservative) reviews Mark Levin's new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto.

Jeffrey writes:

Fundamentally, Levin explains, conservatives recognize that there is an immutable natural law ordained by God that all men and nations must obey. He also makes clear that while human beings have a God-given right to individual liberty, they are also imperfect by nature and, thus, if given too much power, are likely to abuse the God-given rights of others.

But that's not quite the whole story. In history and by doctrine, Christianity must limit not only individual power but individual liberty. Human nature is fallen and corrupt, according to Christian dogma, and thus must be controlled. That is why most conservative Christians endorse the drug war, immigration controls, legal discrimination (if not outright persecution) of homosexuals, censorship, abortion bans, and even a welfare state. Christianity reigned in the West from the 300s, when Rome forcibly banned other religions, for centuries. The United States arose not when Christianity dominated, but in the wake of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on human reason and earthly success.

Jeffrey quotes Levin:

Some resist the idea of a Natural Law's relationship to Divine Providence, for fear it leads to intolerance or even theocracy. They have it backwards. If man is "endowed by (the) Creator with certain inalienable rights," he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights—rights that are not conferred on man by man. It is the Divine nature of Natural Law that makes permanent man's right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

But it is Levin who has things backwards. I quite concur that we are endowed by our Creator with with certain inalienable rights—and our creator is simply the natural forces that produced humanity. We have rights, and we deserve liberty, even though God does not exist. Natural Law is just that—the laws of nature—and it neither has nor needs a "Divine nature."

Comment by madmax: "It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason..." If it is divined by God how is it "natural?" Levin is making core Conservative arguments: faith, tradition, and original sin are required for the defense of "restrained" liberty and secularism, "materialist" science, and atheistic logic are on the side of (and lead to) socialism. This stuff just saturates the conservative movement. Funny thing about Levin though is that he is an admirer of Ayn Rand. He, like Limbaugh, has been referring to her frequently as of late.

Amity Shlaes Review

March 25, 2009

With talk of new taxes, new union powers, continued bailouts, and more federal controls of business, now is the perfect time to review the damage that similar controls caused under Hoover and FDR.

The Spring Objective Standard has published my (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/amity-shlaes.asp) review of Amity Shlaes's book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. The beginning of the article is available online at no cost; the journal sells the article singly and offers online and print subscriptions.

I summarize, "As president, Hoover pursued six main types of political controls that devastated the economy: protectionism, wage controls, interference with the money supply, scapegoating of businessmen, expansion of public works, and increased taxation." By the time Hoover left office, unemployment was somewhere between 20 and 30 percent. By extending and expanding such controls, FDR prolonged the Depression and impeded economic recovery.

Obviously I recommend Shlaes's book. However, as I mention in the review, Shlaes does not offer a good account of Federal Reserve policy especially before the Depression. While others, including Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, have written about monetary policy of the time, I don't think the matter has been definitively settled. (The economic analyses of both Friedman and Rothbard are influenced by political preconceptions that I believe are significantly faulty.) I still have much reading to do in that area, though my sense is that I will search in vain for a definitive account that fully explains the historical facts and points the way to a free market alternative.

But Shlaes does a great job of reviewing the other sorts of controls imposed by Hoover and FDR. I hope my review serves to crystalize some of the key historical events as well as to generate more interest in Shlaes's book.

'We Have a Co-Responsibility'

March 26, 2009

Attorney General Eric Holder (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1) said that the United States should reinstitute the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban on the sale of arbitrarily selected semiautomatic guns in order (at least in fantasy land) to reduce the violence of Mexican drug gangs.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/clinton-heads-mexico-amid-major-drug-related-violence-border/) added, "I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility. Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

Clinton is right about one thing: the United States does "have a co-responsibility" for drug-related Mexican violence. The United States wages a war on drugs at home and abroad while encouraging the Mexican government to follow suit, a policy primarily responsible for (http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=13) drug-related violence.

We know perfectly well how to end drug-trade-related violence both in Mexico and in the United States. End the war on drugs. But few politicians have the courage or integrity to state this simple fact, at least in public.

This is yet another example of how drug prohibition promotes gun prohibition, a topic I (http://www.freecolorado.com/colib/0006wars.html) discussed in 2000 (though I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/whats-wrong-with-libertarianism.html) no longer endorse the Libertarians).

Gun-rights advocates who endorse drug prohibition act as destroyers of their own cause.

Comment by Robert F. Hickey, Ph.D.: Having been involved with treatment of drug users since 1968 and named to the team of Nixon's first declaration of war in June, 1971, the supposed 'cure' has become worse than the disease. We created a new private prison industry, we have incarcerated more of a percentage of our citizens than any other country in the world, we have surrendered our civil rights, and tagged too many young people with a criminal label for life. Come on folks! We don't need a 'War on Drugs' we need common sense.

Obama at Notre Dame

March 27, 2009

I despise Barack Obama for a lot of reasons, but his support for the right to get an abortion is not among them (though I don't think tax dollars should go to fund abortion or any other medical procedure).

The Town Hall columnist (http://townhall.com/Columnists/LauraHollis/2009/03/26/%E2%80%9Csocial_justice%E2%80%9D_catholicism_hits_bottom) Laura Hollis is upset that Obama will speak at Notre Dame's graduation ceremony in May. So is Denver Archbishop (http://coloradoindependent.com/25009/archbishop-chaput-weighs-in-on-obama-notre-dame-flap-whips-up-flock-again) Charles Chaput.

But, while such critics scream and moan, the one thing they do not do is demonstrate that a fertilized egg (through the fetal stage) is a person. The argument against abortion boils down to the claim that God allegedly declares it a sin.

So I again point to the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper written by Diana Hsieh and me demonstrating that a fertilized egg is not a person, and that personhood begins at birth. (I will not post any comments here that do not seriously grapple with the arguments in that paper.)

Chaput forthrightly declares abortion to be a matter of religious faith. But he does offer a bit of good news, reports the Colorado Independent:

Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues [ e.g., abortion and stem-cell research]. But too many Catholics just don't really care. That's the truth of it. If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics... really understood their faith, we wouldn't need to waste each other's time arguing about whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow "balanced out" or excused by other good social policies.

Surveys back up Chaput's claim that many Catholics "just don't really care" about banning abortion on grounds of religious faith. And thank God for that.

I wonder, though, what other "good social policies" Chaput has in mind.

Turn On Lights Saturday at 8:30 for Edison Hour

March 27, 2009

Remember to turn on all of your lights—all of them!—Saturday at 8:30 p.m. to celebrate Edison Hour. In fact, turn on all of your electrical appliances you can manage. Take an hour to appreciate the discovery of electricity and the invention of electrical power generation and the electric light. Say a silent "thank you" to the scientists, industrialists, businessmen, and producers who have made possible electrical power.

We no longer live in a dark and cold world. We can turn on the lights when it gets dark. We no longer have to rely on burning smelly oils or animal fats for light.

We no longer have to depend on burning wood or coal in home ovens (even in the middle of summer) to cook our food. We need merely turn the dial on the electric oven.

We no longer have to spend hours laboring to prepare food and clean up the mess. We can flip on the electric mixer or processor, then throw all the dirty dishes into the electric dishwasher. Then we can throw the leftovers into the electric freezer or refrigerator, where we keep milk, produce, and meat in an edible state for days and as long as months.

For entertainment and education, we can flip on the radio, television, or computer. For instance, we can watch an (http://www.history.com/video.do?name=science&bcpid=1681694253&bclid=1740131712&bctid=1670024880) online video Thomas Edison discussing the electric light.

Of course Edison Hour is a response to (http://www.earthhour.org/) Earth Hour, to which Keith Lockitch (http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2009/03/real-meaning-of-earth-hour-by-keith.asp) responds:

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible. ...

The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.

In the name of industrial progress, in the name of life-serving energy production, in the name of technological advancement, in the name of a lighted path or book page or computer screen, turn on those lights, Saturday, at 8:30 p.m.

Green On Condoms and AIDS

March 30, 2009

Recently I (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/03/condoms-increase-aids.html) discussed the hoopla over the Pope's comments on condoms and AIDS. He said condom distribution does not reduce AIDS in Africa and may increase it. I said it's a mistake to think that condom distribution is a key issue, but that the Pope's general view on condom use is nevertheless wrong.

Frank Pastore has written a (http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2009/03/26/harvard_research_proves_the_pope_and_god_right) column in which he quotes a National Review Online interview with Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Here's what Green had to say:

We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.

The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments. He stresses that condoms have been proven to not be effective at the level of population. There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded Demographic Health Surveys, between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction technology such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by compensating or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.

I also noticed that the pope said monogamy was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than abstinence. The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).

But Patore is not quite revealing the full picture. Just yesterday, the Washington Post published an (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html) article by Green in which he adds:

In a 2008 article in Science called (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/320/5877/749?ck=nck) "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex...

The problem, then, is not the distribution of condoms, but the failure to use them. The overwhelming problem, though, writes, Green, is that "in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time."

But of course the Pope's position is not merely that condom distribution in Africa doesn't work: his position is that condom use is inherently immoral. But Christians who cite Green for some religious purpose are going to have difficulty with Green's general views: "'Closed' or faithful polygamy can work as well. ... All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship."

By coincidence, I agree with the Christians that "faithful polygamy," while it might reduce the spread of AIDS, is nevertheless inappropriate. I say "by coincidence" because, while Christians offer religious reasons against polygamy (though some argue the Bible endorses it), my case against polygamy rests on the inherent difficulties of maintaining a true romantic relationship with more than one other person at a time.

Green has even (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html) more to say in a BBC interview (as with the earlier link via Wikipedia).

Pastore is right that throwing condoms at the AIDS problem is not likely to solve it. But throwing religious dogma at the problem will produce no better results.

Rushified

March 30, 2009

I've been Rushified. The best thing about the new film (http://www.iloveyouman.com/) I Love You, Man is the tribute to (http://rush.com/) Rush—the band even plays a song in a cameo.

I thought it was a fun but not hilarious movie about male bonding, and I really like the cast. (I went with my wife, though obviously I should have planned a "man date." Maybe for the DVD release.)

If the official web page's hurdles annoy you, you can find most of the best clips (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=i+love+you%2C+man&aq=f) through YouTube. Check out the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej6NFVZmgmM) man cave, for instance.

A Rush fan site has some (http://www.rushisaband.com/display.php?id=1790) more info on the links between the movie and the band.

Gotta go now—got a Rush DVD in the computer.

Everyone Is Welcome at Hamburger Mary's

March 30, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090330/COLUMNISTS/903299981/-1/RSS01) published March 30, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary's

"Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural, created order," State Senator Scott Renfroe said February 23 on the Senate floor. He called homosexuality an "abomination," a "detestable act" worthy of the death penalty in Old Testament scripture. He said that adultery and murder are also sins, and "all sin is equal."

Fast forward to March 24. Josh Penry, Senate Minority Leader whose name often comes up in discussions of possible Republican challengers to Governor Bill Ritter, spoke to the Denver Metro Young Republicans at Hamburger Mary's in Denver.

The restaurant's web page explains, "Hamburger Mary's franchises are 'open-air bar and grilles for open-minded people,' where guests enjoy a flamboyant dining experience. Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary's, but our concept is unique in that we are the ONLY national franchise actively marketing to the gay community."

Open-minded Republicans. Who knew?

Penry told Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, "I've got a traditional view on marriage, and a similarly traditional view that you shouldn't spend your life judging others. And so I don't."

Thomas James, president of DMYR, told Hoover that the group picked the restaurant for capitalistic reasons, not political ones: the burger joint offered a "suitable layout" at a "good location."

James added, "DMYR welcomes any individuals who share its five core principles: individual rights with personal responsibility, small and limited government, free-market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the rule of law."

We think it's a very good thing for Republicans to befriend homosexuals and for homosexuals to befriend capitalists. It could be a match made in heaven.

Ward Churchill: Another big story from Denver is that Ward Churchill appeared in court last week to get his job back at the University of Colorado.

The people who really deserved to be fired were those responsible for hiring Churchill in the first place. The entire premise of offering Churchill a job was that he was supposedly a Native American who would write leftist attacks on the United States. Churchill never had the appropriate credentials for the position. And there's not a shred of evidence suggesting he has any American Indian ancestry.

Search online for Churchill's "Winter Attack," and you will find that Churchill sold reproductions of a work that he had copied, with a few minor alterations, from the deceased artist Thomas Mails.

Churchill was a fraud before his job at CU, he was a fraud in getting that job, and he was a fraud as a professor, plagiarizing the work of others and fabricating "facts." The true scandal is not that Churchill fought to get his job back but that he ever landed the job in the first place.

Then of course Churchill compared the American victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Nazis. He wrote of the destruction of the World Trade Center, "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

In an added fraud, Churchill claims that his "right" to keep his job is protected by the First Amendment. It is not. The First Amendment forbids censorship, government restraint of free speech. The First Amendment does not require employers to provide the resources for employees to speak. For instance, you do not have the right to give a speech in your office promoting racism.

Churchill may have been protected by his employment contract—again a problem that CU created—but the First Amendment has nothing to do with job protection. True, because CU accepts tax dollars, more government protections apply. But just imagine how seriously the left would take Churchill's First Amendment claims if, for instance, a professor argued that homosexuals deserved to be beaten. Churchill's leftist supporters would be the first to demand a firing (and we would agree, again subject to contractual constraints).

Ah, but Churchill is cool, he has a persona, bangs a drum, wears a Che hat with sunglasses and poses with guns, and says things the left enjoys. And that is enough for young sycophants and feeble minded leftists to ignore Churchill's fraud and their own hypocrisy.

Bill 1984: Local Representative Steve King is a House sponsor of an atrocious bill that would collect DNA samples prior to criminal conviction, based only on arrest. The bill is officially numbered 241, but we call it Bill 1984 because of its Orwellian implications.

Nothing is more basic to our system of justice than the presumption of innocence, which Bill 1984 threatens. One thing the bill would do is give the police an incentive to arrest people on some pretext just to get a look at their DNA. We have enough Kings in the horror business, Steve.

Cupp On Religion in Politics

March 31, 2009

S. E. Cupp (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/03/27/cupp_hardball_religion/) worries that "the media" blasted the likes of Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and George W. Bush over their religious beliefs while giving Democrats a pass.

For example, Bill Clinton wrote that children "can express their beliefs in homework, through artwork, and during class presentations, as long as it's relevant to the assignment. They can form religious clubs in high school." Joe Lieberman invoked Abraham in a speech about Israel.

But Cupp is making a "moral equivalency" argument like those over which the right likes to beat up the left. Mentioning Abraham in a speech or grading a paper with a religious theme is hardly the same thing as what the likes of Bush and Palin have in mind.

Recall that Bush launched a war partly and explicitly based on his religious faith. Recall that Bush gave us robust faith-based welfare (which Obama has been happy to expand). Recall that Palin wants to completely ban abortion, from the moment of conception, perhaps with some exceptions for the life of the mother.

The religious right is not about speeches and homework. The religious right is about bans on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and in some cases even popular forms of birth control. The religious right is about building a welfare state based on religious dogma and religious institutions. The religious right often endorses censorship and legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Cupp does have a point in that the left increasingly plays the "me too" party on matters of imposing religious faith by force of law. But that hardly justifies the politics of the religious right.

Hoover: Worse Than FDR

March 31, 2009

I was surprised to see that Scott Powell (http://powellhistory.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/americas-presidents-introducing-the-powell-history-rankings/) categorizes Herbert Hoover as a presidential "mixed bag," while FDR is among the "unforgivables." As I discuss for The Objective Standard in my (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-spring/amity-shlaes.asp) review of Amity Shlaes's book The Forgotten Man, Hoover helped cause the economic catastrophe that assured FDR's election, and Hoover implemented many of the political economic controls that paved the way to FDR's continued controls. So Hoover was at least as bad as FDR.

As Shlaes mentions (and I review), Hoover once said that concern with private property is a "fetich." I was curious about this, so I looked up the passage in Hoover's American Individualism:

But those are utterly wrong who say that individualism has as its only end the acquisition and preservation of private property—the selfish snatching and hoarding of the common product. Our American individualism, indeed, is only in part an economic creed. It aims to provide opportunity for self-expression, not merely economically, but spiritually as well. Private property is not a fetich in America. The crushing of the liquor trade without a cent of compensation, with scarcely even a discussion of it, does not bear out the notion that we give property rights any headway over human rights.

Notice how Hoover builds his collectivist edifice on grains of truth. He claims to endorse "individualism," yet his sort of individualism sacrifices the individual to the collective, moderately, of course. It is true that authentic individualism is not concerned only with economic ends.

Hoover denigrates economic interests as "selfish snatching and hoarding," something inherently suspect morally. Why "snatching," rather than "earning?" Why "hoarding," rather than "investing?" And what is this "common product?" Hoover here suggests that the wealth within a nation belongs to the nation, rather than to the individuals who earn it.

Notice the example Hoover gives of the "spiritual" dimension of "American individualism:" the "crushing" of an industry without compensation or even much discussion. Obliterating an entire industry through federal controls, subverting the choices and property rights of individuals to the will of the collective—that is what Hoover means by "human rights."

Hoover was a dishonest snake who crushed the entire American economy beneath the boot of his collectivist "individualism."

Harsanyi Endorses Tax-Funded Creationism

April 1, 2009

I was surprised to read that David Harsanyi, the (usually) free market writer for the Denver Post, endorsed the teaching of creationism in tax-funded schools. He (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12040390) writes:

Why are so many allegedly tolerant and science-loving Americans aghast at the notion that their beliefs will be scrutinized in schools? ...

The most sensible solution, of course, would be to permit parents a choice so that they can send their kids to a school that caters to any brand of nonsense they desire—outside of three core subjects.

The left will never allow any genuine choice in our school systems. So it seems highly disagreeable and political to trap kids in public schools and, at the same time, decide where schools fall on controversial issues.

Hold on there a minute, partner. Parents are already "permitted" to send their children to private schools, including ones that teach creationism. The problem is that parents who send their children to private schools are also forced to continue to subsidize tax-funded schools that they don't use. But notice that Harsanyi does not condemn the forcible collection of wealth to fund political schools. Instead, he longs for "genuine choice in our school systems"—by which I take it that he means "genuine choice" funded by forcible wealth transfers. If we want genuine choice, then people must be permitted to decide which schools—if any—they wish to fund.

Obviously on a free market politicians would properly have nothing to say about what schools teach. But tax-funded schools, as part of the government, must preserve the separation of church and state. Parents who send their children to tax-funded schools are welcome to teach their children creationism at home and at church. But don't use my tax dollars to fund religious nonsense.

The Meltdown of Thomas E. Woods

April 1, 2009

I was excited when I first heard that Young Americans for Liberty had invited Thomas E. Woods to (http://www.boulderyal.org/) speak at the University of Colorado, Boulder. I figured that Woods, author of Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, would have some interesting things to say about the economic crisis. I agree with his general thesis that federal policies caused the crisis and that "bailouts will make things worse."

Woods will also speak on Saturday, April 4, in Colorado Springs at an (http://mises.org/events/112) event sponsored by the Limited Government Forum. The event will feature other speakers associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

But then a friend pointed me to an (http://hnn.us/articles/10007.html) article by Eric Muller blasting Woods as a "founding member" of the League of the South. Through archive.org, I found the (http://web.archive.org/web/20030716091722/http://www.southerngrace.biz/bonnieblue/14_thomas_e.htm) web page that includes this claim in a biographical note. (I only wish this were an April Fool's joke.)

Another (http://web.archive.org/web/20000118202004/http://www.dixienet.org/positions/free-ac.htm) archived page notes that the League of the South "seeks to protect the historic Anglo-Celtic core culture of the South" and keep that culture from being displaced. The current (http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/corebeliefs.shtml) web page notes that the group "reveres the tenets of our historic Christian faith and acknowledges its supremacy over man-made laws and opinions." The League "upholds the ontological or spiritual equality of all men before God and the bar of justice, while recognizing and rejoicing in the fact that is has neither been the will of God Almighty nor within the power of human legislation to make any two men mechanically equal." The group further believes that Southern culture is "structured upon the Biblical notion of hierarchy" and the "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates." The League of the South is thus racist and theocratic.

Woods (http://calebmaupin.blogspot.com/2008/12/thomas-e-woods-attacks.html) wrote to one blogger, "I am in fact not a member of the League of the South, though I did attend a meeting in 1994 when a decentralist organization was said to be forming. I was 21 at that time." Muller offers several facts indicating the relationship went beyond the attendance of a meeting.

In a review essay for the Mises Institute, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_4.pdf) writes:

Some of the critics [of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History] have laced their denunciations with ad hominem attacks on Woods. Going beyond his book's content, they have dredged up what they consider either guilty associations with the League of the South or unconscionable past writings in The Southern Partisan. [Actually it's the Southern Patriot.] The most egregious offender is Eric Muller. Although Muller in no way qualifies as either a libertarian or conservative, his venomous assaults, descending to the low of Klan baiting, have been frequently referenced by other critics of the book.

Obviously Muller has his own ideological ax to grind, but that doesn't automatically invalidate his criticisms of Woods. In fact Woods was associated with the League of the South, however loosely. But Muller's criticisms hardly end with that fact. Hummel himself writes, "Woods clearly wants to tender a neo-Confederate interpretation, in which slavery is shunted into the background as a motive for southern secession."

So Woods is not a member of the racist and theocratic League of the South, he is only a neo-Confederate who argues the South had the right to secede. How comforting.

Muller points to an article of Woods published by the League of the South; the (http://web.archive.org/web/19961102132104/http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol2no1/copperhd.html) archived article remains available. Woods wrote that "hard-core northern conservatives have admired Southern society for remaining socially and theologically sound long after John Winthrop's 'city on a hill' had descended into a nightmare of Christian heresies and secular crusading." He praised the "social harmony and adherence to tradition that characterized the South." The South, he wrote, "remained stubbornly orthodox in it's Judeo-Christianity further undermined the myth that the two sections constituted a single nation." He denounced the Fourteenth Amendment as "incompatible with a federal system."

I'm all for federalism, but only as a means to individual rights. States do not have "rights" in the fundamental sense of the term. No state that systematically and massively violates individual rights has any "right" to secede from a broader government.

Even disregarding Woods's past associations, he clearly believes that liberty has its roots in theology and is defined by theology. Thus, it is no surprise that Ron Paul, who has vacillated between a state's-rights argument against abortion and a (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/09/ron-paul-person-from-conception.html) federal amendment laying the grounds for outlawing abortion, wrote the foreword to Woods's latest book.

I do not doubt that Woods has many insights into the financial meltdown. Nor do I doubt that, ultimately, he is as dangerous an enemy of liberty as any leftist.

Comment by Chuck Moe: You've taken a communist's blog and a blatantly biased review, sprinkled in some misinterpretation of an article he wrote, topped it off with an anti-Ron Paul smear, and created a really poor conclusion of Thomas Woods contribution to the liberty movement. I don't think you understand where Thomas Woods is coming from. I would urge you to come to CU and hear him speak. There also may be time to speak with him and perhaps, you may find your article rather unfair.

Comment by Ari: Chuck, As I pointed out, Muller's claims can be independently checked regardless of Muller's ideological bent. Notice that I looked up various documents that Muller cited. If you're going to claim that I've "misinterpreted" one of Woods's articles, you need to explain what precisely I allegedly misinterpreted. But it has nothing to do with my interpretation; Woods's article speaks for itself. My point against Ron Paul is not a "smear"—it is a factual claim and my indication of why Paul is wrong. I am not going to waste an entire evening listening to Woods. I have better things to do with my time. There are plenty of other credible people explaining the economic crisis.

Comment by Anonymous: "There are plenty of other credible people explaining the economic crisis." Really... Name three...

Comment by Ari: John Allison, Yaron Brook, Richard Salsman, Peter Schiff, George Reisman, Sheldon Richman...

Comment by Froilan Vincent: Very true! I have also blogged about a very small groups of so-called Libertarian Catholics who subscribe to the idea of Woods. These Lib-Cats whom I call Libertarian-mystics are advocating for the restoration of the union of church and state. Here's my blog.
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/libertarian-mysticism-versus-liberty/

'Abortifacant' Birth Control

April 2, 2009

In our (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper on Colorado's "personhood" initiative, Diana Hsieh and I pointed out that many common forms of birth control, including the pill and IUD, may act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The implication is that, if a fertilized egg were defined as a "person," with all the legal rights of a newborn, such birth control logically would have to be banned.

Now the Colorado Catholic Conference illustrates that our concerns were warranted. In a March 31 e-mail, the group warns:

Senate Bill 225 the Birth Control Protection Act concerning the definition of contraception. Senate Bill 225 defines contraceptive or contraception as a medically acceptable drug, device, or procedure used to prevent pregnancy.

This bill is dangerously broad and sweeping with the generic definition it provides for the terms "contraceptive" or "contraception." This definition could have the effect of making a "drug, device or procedure" that is actually an abortificant a contraceptive or contraception in Colorado.

I criticized the bill on (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/03/contraception-medically-acceptable.html) other grounds. But at least debate over the bill has clarified this important issue, as well as the Catholic opposition to birth control that may prevent implantation. Few Catholics seem interested in banning birth control across the board, though the Church opposes it in all cases.

Comment by tubal reversal: Every woman has right to dream of having a baby. Tubal reversal allows a woman the ability to conceive naturally without any harm. Although tubal ligation is considered a permanent method of birth control, but at some later stage you think that you have done something wrong and you should not have done tubal ligation. But don't worry; in approximately 90% of cases the procedure can be reversed.

Woods Against the Abolitionists

April 2, 2009

Yesterday I briefly (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/meltdown-of-thomas-e-woods.html) reviewed some of the views of Thomas E. Woods, who will speak at the University of Colorado tomorrow and in Colorado Springs on Saturday. Largely I drew on an article by Eric Muller, who, as I suggested, is not automatically wrong about Woods simply because Muller is a leftist.

I thought it was an interesting irony, given that a jury will soon decide whether the University of Colorado owes Ward Churchill restitution for firing him for academic fraud, that Muller attacked Woods for his Churchillesque foreign policy. (Churchill, you may (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/everyone-is-welcome-at-hamburger-marys.html) recall, argued that American foreign policy was to blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.) Muller blasts "Dr. Woods's memorable insistence that the September 11 attacks were 'bound to' happen to us because of 'the barbarism of recent American foreign policy' in 'attempt[ing] the hubristic enterprise of running the world—and not even on Christian principles.'"

I will get to Woods's essay on foreign policy in due course. But first I want to review another essay by Woods (also cited by Muller) published by the League of the South. The two essays are ideologically connected, it turns out.

Woods's article, "Dispelling Myths... The Abolitionists," is no longer available directly through DixieNet.org, the web page of the League of the South (which is a racist, theocratic outfit, as I pointed out yesterday). However, it remains (http://web.archive.org/web/19961102133048/http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol2no5/abolish.html) available through Archive.org. The biography with the article states, "Mr. Woods, a graduate student at Columbia University, holds a B.A.in history from Harvard and is a SL Founding member."

Woods condemned not only the abolitionists but the principles of the Declaration of Independence:

Charles Sumner had equally mischievous plans for postbellum society: to elevate the Declaration of Independence that it might "stand side by side with the Constitution, and enjoy with it coequal authority." "Full well . . . I know that in other days, when Slavery prevailed . . . there was a different rule of interpretation," Sumner conceded. This "different rule of interpretation," which it pleased our Fathers to call "constitutionalism," was far too restrictive to allow the kind of innovations of which the scheming Sumner dreamed.

The war, he claimed, had established "a new rule of interpretation by which the institutions of our country are dedicated forevermore to Human Rights, and the Declaration of Independenceis made a living letter instead of a promise." Thus the statement that "all men are created equal," condemned by John Randolph of Roanoke as a "most pernicious falsehood," was to become the central organizing principle for the republic. It is to this polluted source that we may trace the scores of crusaders for Equality from forced busing to affirmative action which have been visited upon us ever since. ...

Any civilized man must recognize in the abolitionists not noble crusaders whose one flaw was a tendency toward extremism, but utterly reprehensible agitators who put metaphysical abstractions ahead of prudence, charity, and rationality. Indeed, with heroes like this, who needs villains?

Woods argued, first, that some abolitionists were mean, and, second, "that an abstract commitment to Equality and human rights has a way of degenerating into totalitarianism and mass murder." In essence, Woods argued that the sins of the French condemn human rights as such.

But Woods omitted a couple of key facts. First, whereas some abolitionists may have erred on occasion, the abolitionists accomplished the magnificent goal of abolishing slavery. Shouldn't that bare fact at some point factor into our evaluation of the abolitionists?

Second, Woods ignored the critical distinctions between the American and French revolutions. The American Founders—those loyal to the Declaration—advocated legal equality—equality before the law—and individual rights for all. This is a far different ideal than egalitarianism, though Woods conflated the two.

I don't know how Woods's views have evolved since his years as a graduate student. But Woods's old essay is profoundly disturbing.

Some will argue that it's not fair to dredge up Wood's old writings. However, his more recent writings, while different in substance, share many of the same basic flaws.

In an (http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/10/18/18429.html) article published by Pravda (yes, Pravda), Woods discusses the 9/11 attacks.

Woods mocks the view that "the terrorists must hate 'freedom' and 'democracy'"—despite the fact that they have stated as much. He writes, "Pat Buchanan was the only person who warned that the barbarism of recent American foreign policy was bound to lead to a terrorist catastrophe on American soil." It is American military intrusions, he argues, that "invite terrorist attacks on our citizens and country." The answer is "extricating the United States from ethnic, religious and historical quarrels that are not ours and which we cannot resolve with any finality."

To his credit—and this is what distinguishes Woods from Churchill—Woods writes, "I am obviously not suggesting that past U.S. actions somehow justified these unknown savages in their kamikaze attacks on innocent Americans." Still, Woods is squarely in the "blame America first" camp.

Woods also emphasizes the theological roots of his ideology; he suggests U.S. foreign policy should manifest the "spirit of Catholicism." He concludes, "God hates the proud. Our leaders have attempted the hubristic enterprise of running the world—and not even on Christian principles, but on a combination of simple greed and Enlightenment philosophy. That cannot go on forever."

Woods also approving quotes another professor critical of America's "Israeli proxy."

Again Woods ignores the key facts.

First, though U.S. interventionism is a contributer to terrorist activity, the primary cause of Islamic terrorism is the Islamist ideology of theocratic conquest.

Second, while I quite agree that the United States should cease its altruistic military actions around the globe, the United States also needs to protect critical allies, particularly Israel, in the name of American defense. While Israel is hardly a consistently free nation, compared to its neighbors it is a bastion of liberty. Israel has every right to defend itself against its aggressive neighbors, and the United States has every right to help.

Third, trying to resolve some ethnic conflict is hardly the same thing as, say, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Fourth, as Bush made clear, his foreign policy proceeded on Christian principles as he understood them, which promote the sort of altruistic actions that Woods condemns.

Though the subject is different, Woods makes the same basic error in both essays: he condemns state action as such (particularly if the state in question is the United States), regardless of the standard of individual rights. Despite Woods's arguments, the abolitionists were right, and the south was wrong, because slavery is morally monstrous. Southern states had no right to maintain slavery, and the south is responsible for the primary evil. Likewise, United States responses to totalitarian aggression and to state sponsored terror are not remotely comparable to that aggression and terror. In both cases, Woods makes a crude "moral equivalency" argument—the abolitionists made some mistakes, therefore they were worse than southern slave holders; the United States government errs in many of its foreign policy decisions and is therefore to blame for Islamist terror.

Woods's (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=cd75a1a7ac1eb2c582d2e33c92ed44ee&topic=8971.msg119972#msg119972) antistate fervor causes him to condemn the abolitionists and the Americans and to downplay or overlook the evil of slave states and Islamic totalitarians. In other words, Woods is the quintessential libertarian.

Woods '05: 'Nothing to Apologize For'

April 3, 2009

I've spent significant time criticizing Thomas E. Woods (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/woods-against-abolitionists.html) (here and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/meltdown-of-thomas-e-woods.html) here), a conservative-libertarian author of several books and a (http://www.thomasewoods.com/about/) senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Woods will speak this evening at the University of Colorado and tomorrow in Colorado Springs. In response to several anonymous postings, I'll extend my comments here.

Woods's older articles—published by the racist and theocratic League of the South—condemned the abolitionists and the Declaration of Independence while praising the "social harmony and adherence to tradition that characterized the South." These older writings are repugnant and wrong.

I hasten to point out that some that Woods's newer ideas—the ones he still promotes—are also disturbing and wrong, though not grotesque as were his older writings.

As I pointed out, even Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, a libertarian favorite, (http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_4.pdf) writes for the Ludwig von Mises Institute in a review of Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History—a book published in 2004 that Woods actively promotes on his web page as of this morning-- "Woods clearly wants to tender a neo-Confederate interpretation, in which slavery is shunted into the background as a motive for southern secession."

As I reviewed yesterday, Woods's essay on 9/11 puts him squarely in the "blame America first" camp (along with Ron Paul and many other libertarians) and further reveals his view that American policy should be rooted in theology. So, even discounting Woods's writings for the League of the South, Woods clearly advocates states' rights even when individual rights take a back seat, criticizes American support of legitimate allies such as Israel, and endorses faith-based politics over the separation of church and state. (To take another example of this last point, Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods26.html) calls abortion "intrinsically immoral" based on Catholic doctrine.) So even discounting all of Woods's older writings, he has provided plenty of reasons to distrust his agenda.

I granted that Woods may have changed his mind about his older writings. I've also written some things in my younger days that I would not today endorse (though nothing so nasty as what Woods wrote.) The onus is on Woods to demonstrate that that he has repudiated his older writings. Yet, in a 2005 essay, Woods (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/007450.html) writes that, though he "had an intermittent membership in the League [of the South] over the years," "I have nothing to apologize for."

Really? Woods is not going to apologize for calling the Declaration of Independence a "polluted source," for condemning its statement "that all men are created equal," or for calling the abolitionists "reprehensible agitators?" Readers may peruse Woods's 2005 essay and evaluate for themselves the extent that Woods's views have changed.

I am not alone in questioning Woods's commitment to liberty. In a review of Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide, Cathy Young (http://www.reason.com/news/show/36170.html) writes for Reason:

Much of the book's first half is an apologia for the antebellum South and its cause in the War Between the States (Woods' preferred term). ...

[R]eaders will search The Politically Incorrect Guide in vain for any moral outrage at a brutal system that allowed some human beings to own others. The best Woods can do is suggest that without the war, slavery could have been phased out peacefully, a stance that is speculative at best. ...

In a 1997 article titled "Christendom's Last Stand," (http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue04/christendom.htm) ["Removed by request of the author" but available (http://web.archive.org/web/19991023114339/http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue04/christendom.htm) on archive] Woods proclaims the Confederacy's defeat "the real watershed from which we can trace many of the destructive trends that continue to ravage our civilization today." ...

Woods complains when critics quote his older essays. But when I contacted him to ask if he now rejected any part of those writings, he replied, "I don't so much object to their use of old quotations, much of which I'm sure I still stand by; I was simply taken aback at the lengths to which some have gone to avoid discussing my book." Woods claimed his views had evolved in a more libertarian direction. But he still spoke sympathetically of the defenders of the Southern order, telling me that "certain strains of abolitionist argument, Southerners feared, could corrode all kinds of human relations" since they challenged the principles of authority and subordination. ...

This book provides quick ammunition to those for whom "the abolitionists were the bad guys" and "FDR didn't save the country from the Great Depression" are equally outlandish ideas.

In that last cited paragraph, Young gets to the heart of what's wrong with Woods. By packaging free-market economics with theology-based neo-Confederatism, Woods discredits the free market. Thus, I must correct my previous statement that Woods "is as dangerous an enemy of liberty as any leftist." Woods is the far more dangerous enemy.

This morning an anonymous poster (I assume it's the same person, though I wonder why that person didn't state his or her name), send in three comments within a two-minute span. I am happy to respond to those comments:

Here's a thought: given that Woods' article on abolitionism is no longer available online, such that you have to use a gimmick to find it, is it possible that he changed his mind over the past 15 years? Especially since he's on record as saying that the slaves had the right to kill their masters and take their property? Why, apart from your hatred of reason, would you focus only on an article Woods obviously wanted taken down, rather than his easily available archive of articles that makes your interpretation of his work look ridiculous?

Reisman, Richman, and Schiff are all supporters of Woods.

Is it possible that Woods has changed his mind over the years? Why don't you dig up his old articles praising the Persian Gulf War, too?

I've dealt adequately with the "change" in Woods's views. It is hardly a "gimmick" to see what Woods actually wrote. I will ignore Anonymous's ad hominem attacks. If Anonymous wishes to cite particular articles of Woods that make my "interpretation of his work look ridiculous," Anonymous is free to do so. Otherwise I will treat Anonymous's claim as just another ad hominem and baseless attack. Woods's old articles "praising the Persian Gulf War" are not relevant to my criticisms of Woods. (If Anonymous thinks they are, Anonymous is free to cite some particular article and explain its relevance.)

The reference to Reisman, Richman, and Schiff pertains to (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/meltdown-of-thomas-e-woods.html) this exchange (which I assume is with the same anonymous poster):

Anonymous said...

"There are plenty of other credible people explaining the economic crisis."

Really... Name three...

Ari said...

John Allison, Yaron Brook, Richard Salsman, Peter Schiff, George Reisman, Sheldon Richman...

It occurred to me at the time that I was opening myself up for this criticism, but it's not much of a criticism. Absent any citation from Anonymous, I don't have much else to say about the matter. Do they endorse (or even know about) the views of Woods that I have criticized? Woods does not gain credibility by a favorable mention by somebody else; the person making the favorable mention loses credibility.

I have saved the important issue for last. Woods has (http://calebmaupin.blogspot.com/2008/12/thomas-e-woods-attacks.html) written "that the slaves had the natural right to rise up and kill their masters and confiscate their property." Does this excuse his defense of the pro-slavery South or his condemnation of the abolitionists? Hardly.

Woods claim is that slaves, who were horribly oppressed, physically beaten and restrained, and often forcibly prevented from gaining an education, had the "natural right to rise up." No doubt. But all this position allows Woods to do is abstain from committing himself to governmental action to abolish slavery. How magnanimous of Woods, to grant slaves the "right" to "rise up" and be slaughtered! What is relevant in this discussion is not the rights of slaves to rise up, but the rights of slaves to enjoy protection by the government from the slave-holders. But those are precisely the rights that Woods with his neo-Confederate views fails to uphold.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Very interesting. I read Meltdown at the request of a friend, but I was unaware of Wood's previous life. I found that Woods was very good at explaining certain economic ideas in ways that were both understandable and memorable. People's ideas often change as they grow older and experience reality unshielded by their parents. However, I think a man has a duty to publically repudiate that which he previously publically endorsed, but that he has determined was wrong.

Taliban Flogs Girl for Refusing Marriage to Taliban Leader

April 6, 2009

Thanks to (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/04/taliban-tortures-17-year-old-girl-in-pakistan/) Dave Williams for pointing out (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/asia/la-fg-pakistan-flogging4-2009apr04,0,7541311.story) this story:

Face down before a crowd, the teenage girl shrieks and writhes, begging for mercy. But the three masked men holding her down merely tighten their grip while a fourth man whips her again and again. ...

[Human rights activist Asma] Jahangir said the girl was believed to have been punished after refusing to marry a Taliban commander in the Swat Valley [in Pakistan].

I am getting really tired of reading about these Islamist assaults on women and little girls.

Here's the only good news: "President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani condemned the flogging and pledged an investigation."

If you can stomach watching these barbarians from the "religion of peace" torturing a young girl for the "crime" of wishing not to marry a barbarian, you can check out the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1gKY7CX5ew&feature=related) YouTube video.

Coconut Fat Yum

April 6, 2009

After a series of difficult and stressful posts, I thought I'd take it easier and write about something fun, something yummy. My new fatty friend is the coconut.

Several of my Objectivist friends have gotten interested in lower-carb diets, as indicated by Diana Hsieh's (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/04/good-calories-bad-calories.shtml) blog. Lower-carb means higher-fat. It was Diana who recommended coconut fat to me, I think, which I've started using for general cooking (often instead of butter or olive oil). In fact, I just made up a batch of chocolate sauce, consisting of chocolate powder, water, and a glob of coconut fat. I ate some for dessert with whipped cream over a sliced banana. Ridiculously good.

I've been enjoying Spectrum brand, which costs me seven or eight dollars at Whole Foods for a fourteen ounce jar. The entire jar contains nearly 400 grams of fat, mostly saturated. I see Amazon carries it for six bucks.

However, I now have a new source as well. (http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2009/03/quick-easy-delicious-chicken-mole.html) Free the Animal has an easy recipe for chicken mole, which I tried substituting chocolate powder for the bar. Pretty good. It calls for a can of coconut milk.

The cheapest source of coconut milk I've found is Thai Kitchen brand, which Target sells for $1.44 for a fourteen ounce can. A whole can contains around 70 grams of fat, so it takes 5.6 as many cans to equal the fat content of a jar of Spectrum. I noticed that, with the milk, the fat separates from the juice at lower room temperatures, so it would be easy to pour off the juice for some other purpose and use the fat in cooking.

The "big three" fatty fruits are the olive, avocado, and coconut, and I'm a big fan of each of them (though I don't eat many avocados because they're fairly expensive).

Incidentally, my wife and I have been watching a fair amount of Hulu lately—including, most recently, Legend of the Seeker—and one of the Hulu ads is from "I Can't Believe it's Not Butter." The ad mocks the "Buttertons," family that foolishly eats real butter instead of soybean and canola (rape seed) fat, including hydrogenated fat. Thus, even though the company (http://www.nowyouknowbetter.com/Spread-The-Facts.aspx) claims its products contain "0g trans fat," this claim is a product of rounding down, as trans fat means hydrogenated fat, and hydrogenated fat is clearly listed in the ingredients, as I verified a few days ago at the grocery store.

So we're supposed to believe that vegetable fat—including hydrogenated vegetable fat—is healthier than the saturated fat in butter and fruits such as coconut.

I can't believe it's not bulls***.

God Is Back

April 7, 2009

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/06/god_faith_religion/) discuss their new book, God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World, over at Fox. They write:

By the 1960s it looked as if the prophets of secularization were being proved right. Christianity was withering in the former heartland of Christendom—Europe. Developing countries from India to Iran were in the hands of avowedly secular governments. And two of the world's biggest countries—Russia and China—were run by Communist Parties that were dedicated to proving that Marx was right. ...

Today it is secularization theory that is dead rather than religion. Religion continues to flourish in the United States.

These bare facts help establish why religion has not gone away, despite its inherent irrationality. Between Jesus and Marx, Jesus doesn't look like such a bad option.

But surely few wish to proclaim Iran as an example of religious success.

The authors write, "Man is a theotropic beast—some men always crave the consolations of religion. Religion answers questions that have always troubled people—why am I here and what is the purpose of life?" But this confuses philosophy with religion: we can answer such questions without reference to a mythical being.

These authors, at least, praise the separation of church and state. While I believe that ultimately a free society depends on a rational, secular defense, I am more than happy to tolerate the religious views of those who endorse the separation of church and state. I point out, though, that such a position depends on political commitments that go beyond strictly religious convictions.

FreeColorado.com Wins Sam Adams Award

April 7, 2009

MEDIA RELEASE

FREECOLORADO.COM WINS SAM ADAMS AWARD

The Sam Adams Alliance announced that Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com, has received the 2009 "Modern-Day Sam Adams Award," the organization's top prize, for "his relentless—and ubiquitous—defense of free markets and individual liberty in the state of Colorado."

The organization's media release is available at
http://tinyurl.com/cyaltw

Armstrong will receive his "Golden Sammie" April 18 in Chicago. Presenting the awards will be Michelle Malkin, Stephen Moore, John Fund, Jonathan Hoenig, Mary Katharine, and Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher.

In his entry, Armstrong summarized his "food stamp" diets of 2007 and 2009, his fight against political correctness (as with the "bitch slap" controversy of 2008), his work on health policy, and various other projects.

Armstrong said, "I congratulate the other winners and look forward to learning from their example. I thank the Sam Adams Alliance for recognizing the important work for liberty done at the regional level. Finally, I thank my fellow liberty activists in Colorado—especially my wife—for teaching me so much about liberty, individual rights, and free markets, and how to advocate those values through intellectual activism. This award is for you, my brothers and sisters in liberty."

Armstrong founded FreeColorado.com (then co-freedom.com) in late 1998, before the term "blog" had been coined.

Comment by Fun WIth Gravity: Great job, well-deserved! Maybe now you can relax a bit on that food stamp diet ;) Jeff Montgomery

Comment by Rob: " . . . relentless—and ubiquitous—defense of free markets and individual liberty . . . " I aspire to be Ari Armstrong someday. And no, I'm not trying to be sarcastic or "smart-alecky". I really do hope to reach a point in my own development as an activist where I will have the wherewithal to do as much in Oklahoma as Mr. Armstrong has done in Colorado. Congratulations Ari! The recognition is well-deserved.

Comment by Chad T. Everson: Ari, it was such an honor meeting you and talking with you at the Golden #Sammies. You inspire me and I hope we can work together here in future! You have some really excellent ideas that I would love to see in action! Congratulations again and well deserved is an understatement! Chad T. Everson

Around Colorado: April 7, 2009

April 7, 2009

Sam Adams Alliance

As (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/freecoloradocom-wins-sam-adams-award.html) noted, I won the "Modern-Day Sam Adams Award." Patricia Calhoun has (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/04/wake-up_call_from_bitch-slap_t.php#more) written about it over at Westword, and bloggers (http://bendegrow.com/2009/ari-armstrong-modern-day-sam-adams-helping-fill-the-watchdog-gap/) Ben Degrow and (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/04/liberty-activist-ari-armstrong-modern.html) El Presidente have also picked up the story. I appreciate the warm wishes.

Windmills and Mechanical Energy Storage

Earlier this year I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/windmills-and-mechanical-energy-storage.html) wondered whether it might be possible for a windmill to "slowly lift a giant boulder in the air" in order to store the energy, then drop the rock slowly to run a generator. However, one my friends who is a professional scientist pointed out to me that a small-scale system just isn't feasible. You'd have to lift a huge rock quite a ways into the air for even a small amount of electricity. To get enough weight to generate significant electricity, you'd have to build a large and expensive infrastructure. The plan is at least well beyond the backyard model.

Another scientist, Brian Schwartz, pointed to a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_energy_storage) write-up of "pumped-storage hydroelectricity." The idea is that you pump water into a reservoir, then release the water downhill to run a generator. The problem with adapting such a system to wind power is that it's only feasible where the natural landscape provides the relevant features.

I think the lesson here is that there's no "get electricity quick" scheme that works. For most areas, the only feasible and cost-effective options, so far, remain fossil fuels and nuclear power. But the greenies don't like either of those.

Million Dollar Man

Ward Churchill (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12089473) wants his job back—or a million dollars. Because, you know, it's not about the money for him. It's about the blackmail.

Tax Man on Steroids

Vincent Carroll (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12084975) points out that the State Supreme Court, in ruling that the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights doesn't really mean what it says, "sets up Coloradans to be nibbled to death by one tax hike after another."

Get ready to pay. Because state legislators are infinitely better at spending your money than you are.

Focus On Your Family

April 8, 2009

(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12083195) "[Juan Alberto Ovalle] who narrates Christian CDs has been arrested on suspicion of using the Internet to arrange sex with a teenage girl. ... Ovalle works for a Spanish-speaking arm of the Colorado Springs Christian group Focus on the Family and narrates Biblical text for CDs, according to Internet websites that sell the products."

What does this mean? Not much. Any group can unintentionally hire somebody who turns out to commit an alleged crime.

The case does point out, however, that it's foolish to trust somebody just because he's a self-proclaimed Christian. Yet, for example, many businesses incorporate the Jesus fish in their graphics, because, you know, Jesus was all about exploiting religion to turn a profit.

Christianity does sometimes promote unfounded trust based on religious conversion, authentic or not. There are two problems with this. First, some people exploit religious commitments for illegitimate personal gains. Second, even people who really believe they are turning their lives over to Jesus often are not committing themselves to the difficult work of moral reform. When you're relying on spiritual possession to change your life, rather than sound moral principles and practices, the failure rate can be fairly high.

So, while there are many wonderful Christians in the world, don't assume that every Christian has your best interests at heart.

Comment by Realist Theorist: I too have found zero correlation between whether someone says he's Christian and goes to church etc., and whether he will try to cheat me. Perhaps the evaders and cheats simply think they'll buy there way out by being penitent... only later.

The Real Ayn Rand

April 8, 2009

Today's Denver Post published (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/04/07/still-debating-ayn-rand-4-letters/) four letters about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, three of them negative. But the negative letters don't actually offer any arguments against Rand's ideas, or even correctly summarize them. So I left the following online comments:

I want to clear up a few basic misconceptions about Ayn Rand's work. As Anders Ingemarson advises, read Atlas Shrugged for yourself, rather than assume that its detractors correctly summarize Rand's message.

Dick Sugg seems never to have read Atlas Shrugged. Regardless, he completely misrepresents its theme. The book is NOT about "winners... who make their fortunes by exploiting the losers." Instead, Rand favors a free society in which people cooperate to mutual advantage while respecting individual rights.

In the novel, Rand presents "honest, intelligent, hard-working people" as morally virtuous, productive members of society who make their own way. The exploiters, on the other hand, are the political looters and power-lusters who control the producers of all levels of ability.

Contrary to Sugg's claim, Rand did not oppose charity, and she certainly advocated just "regard for other people." Atlas Shrugged is filled with examples of virtuous friendships.

It is interesting that both Peter Johnson and Cathy Davis claim—without a shred of evidence or logic—that capitalism created the economic crisis. In fact political controls caused the economic crisis by promoting risky lending. For details, see the Ayn Rand Institute's web page devoted to the matter:
(https://aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis)

As an aside, Ayn Rand opposed the libertarian movement, and Johnson's "libertarian" antagonism toward capitalism and his failure to grasp the destructive consequences of political economic controls help illustrate why.

Thanks, -Ari Armstrong
http://www.freecolorado.com/

Polis Defends Gay Rights In Iraq

April 9, 2009

Wow. Jared Polis just might become a statesman, after all. Today, I'm actually proud to call him my Congressman. This (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12103017) story from the Denver Post is remarkable:

As Rep. Jared Polis toured Iraq this week, he had something more than security conditions or troop withdrawals on his mind: the case of a man allegedly sentenced to death in a criminal court for membership in a gay-rights group.

An openly gay member of Congress, Polis has been investigating the treatment of gays in Iraq for several months, and last week he spoke through a translator by phone to a transgender Iraqi man who said he had been arrested, beaten and raped by Ministry of Interior security forces.

Human-rights groups tracking the issue also passed Polis a letter, allegedly written from jail by a man who said he was beaten into confessing he was a member of the gay-rights group Iraqi-LGBT. The group said the man had been sentenced to death in a court in Karkh and finally executed.

What? You mean we shouldn't just condone Iraq's "democratic" persecution of homosexuals? We should stand up and say individual rights matter? How very un-moral-relativist of you, Congressman.

Yes, we continue to debate gay marriage and domestic partnership here in America. Yet it is (nearly) universally accepted that consenting adults have the right to make their own personal decisions regarding sex, that lawmakers are wrong to discriminate against homosexuals (again with partnership remaining the important exception), and that the police have no business persecuting them.

In the Muslim world, theocratic persecution of homosexuals remains the norm. And too many American leaders turn a blind eye.

Now if Polis could just work on expanding the individual rights that he chooses to defend...

Yes, Tapy, Free Market Would Revitalize Economy

April 9, 2009

I had so much fun responding to letters in the Denver Post yesterday that I thought I'd have another go. Today the Post published a (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/04/08/crying-%E2%80%9Csocialism%E2%80%9D-while-the-economy-collapses/#comment-13706) letter by Frank Tapy that supports political economic controls. I replied:

What is remarkable about Tapy's letter is that, while it contains a string of ad hominem attacks, it contains not a single argument in favor of his position.

Meanwhile, free-market advocates have explained in detail how federal controls involving Freddie Mac, Fannie May, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Reserve, and more promoted risky lending that is at the root of the real estate and stock bubble.

Tapy's claim that a free market will lead to "the collapse of the economic system," whereas increased political controls supposedly will save it, is laughable. If he were correct, then Soviet Russia and Maoist China should have become the wealthiest nations, while Hong Kong should have failed. The crisis of today's economic system is the result of political interventions in the economy, yet Tapy calls for more of the same poison.

Prosperity results when individuals have the liberty and the legal protection of their rights of property and contract to produce as they know best and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. When politicians violate people's rights by trying to centrally plan the economy, they impede and discourage production.

Right now, the federal government is taking massive wealth out of the free economy that is desperately needed for investment and squandering it on corporate welfare. Right now, the federal government is seizing the wealth of the responsible in order to reward the irresponsible. Right now, the federal government is undermining the stability of the dollar and loading down our children with debt. And this is what is Tapy thinks will "revitalize" the economy? Seriously?

What we need is a renewal of economic liberty. What we need is a government that protects individual rights instead of violating them on a massive scale.

No amount of "continuous evaluation and modification" of political controls, no "long-term assessment" of political meddling will achieve prosperity. We need freedom.

-Ari Armstrong
http://www.freecolorado.com/

Comment by Chuck Moe: What Tapy doesn't seem to realize is that this country hasn't had a true "free market" economy in nearly 100 years. Can't blame the "free market" when it hasn't existed for quite some time.

Bill of Rights Versus Ten Commandments

April 10, 2009

David Limbaugh (http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/04/10/a_christian_nation?page=1) argues that America is indeed a Christian nation. He quotes John Eidsmoe, "If by the term Christian nation one means a nation that was founded on biblical values that were brought to the nation by mostly professing Christians, then in that sense the United States may truly be called a Christian nation."

Limbaugh also quotes Gary Amos to the effect that the Christian Creator is what endowed us with inalienable rights, whereas the Greeks "believed that rights were a product of society and state."

Finally, Limbaugh states, "Much of our Bill of Rights is biblically based, as well, and the Ten Commandments and further laws set out in the book of Exodus form the basis of our Western law."

As for the first argument, the easy claim is that the Founding generation mostly was Christian. The difficulty is establishing that the nation, after centuries of religious oppression and war in Europe, arose from Christian principles, or from fundamentally different principles that happened to be adopted by Christians. The template neither for the Declaration of Independence nor for the Constitution is found within the Bible.

As for the claim about the Greeks, Limbaugh grossly simplifies the matter, as illustrated by my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/02/lewis.html) review of John Lewis's Solon the Thinker.

What is essential about rights is that they arise by our nature as human beings, not how we were created. Those who argue we were "endowed" with rights by God rarely pretend that God surrounded us with some sort of magical "rights" force field. Instead, they argue that, by our nature, we have rights. But then our nature is separable from religious myth.

Here I want to focus on Limbaugh's last claim, that American law is based on Biblical law. Notably, he quotes not a single Biblical passage that supposedly laid the groundwork for American liberty. As he mentions the Ten Commandments as well as the Bill of Rights, it is only fair to compare those texts, to see just how well they line up. (I'll use the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Text_of_the_Ten_Commandments) usual division of the Exodus Chapter 20 version of the Ten Commandments.)

First Amendment: 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Commandment: Do not have any other gods before me.

Second Commandment: You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Third Commandment: You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Fourth Commandment: Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The first four Commandments are all about establishing religion and curtailing speech.

Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Third Amendment: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Relevant Commandment: The Ten Commandments do not bear directly on the matter, though the Tenth Commandment states, "You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Second Commandment: "I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me..."

Obviously, the Old Testament doctrine of "punishing children for the iniquity of parents" is contrary to the Bill of Rights and American justice. Also, while God was at it, you'd think he would have said something against slavery, rather than sanctioning it within the Ten Commandments.

It's arguable that the bit about covetousness applies to just compensation.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Relevant Commandment: None.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Relevant Commandment: None.

In summary, not only do the Ten Commandments fail to support most of the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments partly contradict the Amendments.

Some may counter that I'm playing games by comparing two texts that obviously weren't meant to be compared. But that's the entire point. The Bible has nothing to do with the American legal system. For every Biblical passage you can stretch to fit American law, I can find several passages that obviously contradict the basic principles of American law.

The rest of the Ten Commandments offer pretty good moral advice.

Fifth Commandment: Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

It's a good idea to honor one's parents—provided they are honorable. I know of parents to horribly abused their children; they deserve prison, not honor. So the Biblical advice is good in a particular context.

Sixth Commandment: You shall not kill.

This is generally good advice, but it neglects justifiable homicide. The problem is that Christians interpret this passage differently, some assuming it allows room for lethal self-defense, other taking it in a more pacifist direction.

Seventh Commandment: You shall not commit adultery.

Eighth Commandment: You shall not steal.

This is good advice, but, contrary to the assertions of various Christians, it does not translate directly into governmental policy. Is a 70 percent tax rate "stealing," or is it good government? The Old Testament has little bearing on such disputes.

Ninth Commandment: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

Tenth Commandment: You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Again good advice, with the exception that you should not covet slaves but call the police to arrest your slave-holding neighbor.

But what is notable about these final Commandments is that, to the extent that they offer good advice, that advice is separable from religious mythology. Such advice long predated the advent of the Bible and arose independently in many other cultures.

The upshot is that Limbaugh hardly makes his case.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: You are right. Limbaugh's comparison is facile, but not true. One does not even need to do a step-by-step comparison. The biblical Hebrews had a certain concept of freedom as a value (as opposed to slavery), but they had no concept at all about individual rights at the time the ten words (as they are called in Hebrew)were conceived. Rudimentary concepts of individual identity (as opposed to group identity) only begin to be seen in the later prophets. These ideas had to do with individual responsibility for one's actions--that the children are not responsible for the sins of the father. The Bill of Rights is not, in any meaningful sense, based on the Bible. There is no reference to the Bible in the Constitution at all. Nor, I suspect, did the founders strain to find such a connection. Is America a Christian nation? Yes, in the sense that the majority of her citizens profess various forms of Christianity as their religion. BUT in the important sense of having a state religion that is Christianity, the answer is no. America is not a Christian nation. The United States has no state religion, and leaves the citizen free to determine his own religious behavior or lack thereof. Finally, though, David Limbaugh's assertions are meant to refute Obama's speech in Turkey. In that speech, he exaggerated Islam's contribution to the United States. This is a gross distortion of history. Islam has had no meaningful contribution to American politics or culture. Mr. Limbaugh would have been better off sticking to that point, rather than to make such an unreal comparison between the Ten Words and the Bill of Rights. I get so frustrated when people distort history and the Bible in order to fit their pet theories.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Your interpretation thus: "Sixth Commandment: You shall not kill. This is generally good advice, but it neglects justifiable homicide. The problem is that Christians interpret this passage differently, some assuming it allows room for lethal self-defense, other taking it in a more pacifist direction." This is based on an incorrect translation that is unfortunately ubiquitous in Christian Bibles.
The correct translation is: "You shall not murder." The Hebrew root in question is different than the root for kill. Murder mean an unlawful taking of the life of another human being. It does not apply to war, self-defense, or the accidental killing of another person. This makes the commandment good moral advice, and reflects the laws and morality of almost every organized human society. I believe you are right that this commandment did not specifically apply to American jurisprudence. It is far more likely that our jurisprudence on murder has its roots in English common law.

Comment by Ari: I appreciate Levin's comments about the Biblical distinction between murder and homicide. However, this still doesn't take us very far. The Bible also seems to condone obliterating a group of people to take over their land, and it sanctions killing people for such "crimes" as homosexuality. We need far more than a religious Commandment to develop a rich theory of what constitutes murder.

Majority Favors Capitalism

April 10, 2009

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism) reports that "53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism," while 20 percent favor socialism and 27 percent don't know.

Here's the worse news: "Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided."

The problem with the report and the (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/april_2009/toplines_capitalism_vs_socialism_april_6_7_2009) survey question is that people's understanding of the terms varies radically. Many think that the massive-statist George W. Bush epitomized capitalism. Many conflate capitalism with modern corporatism, the meshing of corporations and government. Many think institutions such as the Federal Reserve comport with capitalism. The American economy today is not capitalistic, but mixed, with elements of freedom and controls.

So, while I'm heartened that most people at least have a favorable impression of capitalism and a disfavorable impression of socialism, the key is to educate people about what capitalism means, how it protects freedom and individual rights, and how it fosters prosperity.

Giles's Guile

April 12, 2009

Doug Giles's latest (http://townhall.com/Columnists/DougGiles/2009/04/12/america%E2%80%99s_not_a_christian_nation%E2%80%94and_i%E2%80%99m_a_fat_black_lesbian_who_hates_hunting?page=1) article arguing that America is a Christian nation consists mostly of cribbing (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755) quotes from an overtly biased organization that (http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp) wishes to impose Christian dogma by force of law in such areas as "marriage, abortion, education, public morality, gambling, [and] parental rights."

The rest of his article consists of snarky, juvenile commentary. I wonder only why Town Hall, a "conservative" outfit, sees fit to publish such claptrap.

Giles establishes that many of America's founders were Christian and promoted religion. But nobody doubts that fact. Nor does it make America a "Christian nation" in any non-trivial sense of the term. Like fellow columnist (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/04/bill-of-rights-versus-ten-commandments.html) David Limbaugh, Giles makes no effort to show how the Bible supposedly laid the groundwork for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—because the Bible does no such thing.

Giles conveniently omits the fact that John Adams's signature (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/martin-on-americas-founding-adams.html) appears beneath the claim, "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Giles skips the (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/jefferson-madison-and-the-separation-of-church-and-state) fact that both Jefferson and Madison took pains to separate church and state, (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html) that Jefferson advocated a "wall of separation between church and state," and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible) that Jefferson wrote his own Bible that omitted the miraculous birth and resurrection of Jesus.

There is no Easter, by Jefferson's account. Instead, his (http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffb17.html) Gospel ends, "There laid they Jesus, And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."

Comment by Neil Parille: I think what is significant here is that Jefferson and most of the founders did not seek to prevent states from having their own established churches or supporting religion through tax money. Even as president Jefferson advocated some tax support for religion (such as giving money to Indians in Illinois to build a church). As I recall, the treaties that ended the War of Independence and the Mexican American War invoke the Trinity. Since no one (I hope) would claim that these demonstrate that America is officially Trinitarian, why do the opinions of Jefferson and Adams prove that America is officially secular?

Comment by Ari: It doesn't get much more official than this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Mentioning some religious belief in a speech is hardly the same thing as enforcing religious dogma by law.

Comment by Mel McGuire: Ari is right. Indeed, the founders could have built a theocracy but did not. About the detailed American history claims of the "Christian Nation" movement, there is a book titled "Liars For Jesus" that presents a very detailed, point by point, rebuttal. Some of the book is available online, so I can provide a link to a piece about the Indians and Jefferson as well as a link to the book's web page. In addition to the book, the page contains many links to articles written by Rodda. (http://www.liarsforjesus.com/pages/3page1.htm) Indian Treaties and Indian Schools
(http://www.liarsforjesus.com/) Liars For Jesus by Chris Rodda

Comment by Neil Parille: Ari, But does the federal government giving money to Indians to build a church or employ Congressional or military chaplans violate either of these provisions? Apparenly even the more strict church/state separationists (such as Jefferson) at the time didn't think so. I don't support such funding for the most part (I might make an exception for military chaplains if the military were strictly limited to defending the US borders) but I find it hard to claim that the Constitution prohibits it.

Comment by Ari: We can interpret the Bill of Rights according to the logic of the language or according to its historical inconsistent application. Do the Alien and Sedition Acts prove the First Amendment doesn't mean what it says? Did slavery disprove the Declaration's premise that "all men are created equal?" Neil's argument seems to be that any inconsistent application of a legal premise disproves the legal premise, an argument I find tedious enough that I don't care to post additional replies.

Where Is Colorado's Daniel Hannan?

April 12, 2009

I know a lot of people have already seen this (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/03/24/so_i_said_to_gordon_brown_i_said) video of Daniel Hannan, a British politician who sounds more American than most American politicians. Hannon (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/03/25/my_speech_to_gordon_brown_goes_viral) notes that his speech became quite popular.

It is remarkable that the United States must now take economic lessons from Britain—and even China!—as warning against our federal profligacy.

I'd like to hear just one Colorado politician or candidate give a speech as eloquently devoted to liberty as this short speech by Hannan. I haven't researched his views in depth, so I cannot comment on his entire ideology. But this is three and a half minutes that makes a person want to stand proud.

Comment by Tenure: Hannan's policies are pretty good overall. One of the major things he's pushing for is to take power out of Whitehall, and put it in the hands of Councils (in America, this would be the same as taking power from Congress/Senate and putting it in the hands of individual states).
He wants local councils to be responsible for their boroughs, so that when people have a problem with the system, they can appeal to their Councilors, rather than to some distant figure in Whitehall.
Alongside all this, he wants to dissolve the numerous Government bodies, agencies, advisories, plans, etc etc, and basically bring about an old-style Conservative revolution more consistent and in-depth than Thatcher. Needless to say, I'm glad he's the MEP for the South-East (where I live).

Faith-Based Politics Versus Faith In Politics

April 13, 2009

Last (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/04/bill-of-rights-versus-ten-commandments.html) Friday and (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/04/giless-guile.html) yesterday I've pointed out that "conservative" writers for Town Hall have claimed—without offering any evidence—that American law is somehow founded on scripture. (http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryPaulson/2009/04/13/put_your_bet_on_god_over_newsweek?page=1) Today Terry Paulson joins the club. Yet there's a bit more to like in Paulson's article than in the other two.

Paulson quotes Newsweek: "A third of Americans say they are born again; this figure, along with the decline of politically moderate-to liberal mainline Protestants... suggests a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians." Paulson sees that trend as positive; I see it as troublesome. There are fewer Christians per capita, but there are still a lot, and they are more hard-core in their beliefs.

Paulson claims, "Contrary to what most secular Americans fear, most Christians want nothing to do with a government-endorsed religion." If we're talking about the government endorsing one sect to the exclusion of others, Paulson's claim is true. But many Christians want to impose their religious dogma by legal force by banning abortion, forcibly transferring funds to religious organizations, legally discriminating against homosexuals, censoring unsavory expression, beefing up the drug war, restricting birth control, and banning all sorts of "vices" among consenting adults.

Thus, Paulson's concerns about "attempts to banish God from the public square" ring a little hollow. I don't care if some politicians prays to God in public or invokes some Biblical passage in a speech. I do care if a politician wants to impose Christian dogma by force of law. Paulson, and many other Christians I have read, conflate these two issues.

Paulson does admit—nay, brag—that Christianity advocates an altruistic foreign policy. He writes:

For our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come not from Presidents or legislators, but from God. It's our Christian values that have driven us to extend those freedoms to others, even if it means sending our young men and women to defend Muslim citizens in Bosnia and to free Muslims from tyranny in Iraq.

Well, the Declaration says "Creator," not "God," but at any rate our rights are separable from the question of how we came about. But Paulson's comments illustrates that Christian "liberty" is not at all the same thing as the government protecting the individual rights of its citizens. For Paulson, Christianity demands that the government forcibly redistribute wealth from its citizens and put soldiers in harm's way to intervene in foreign conflicts absent any clear gain to American security.

Then there is the obvious fact that, historically, Christianity tended to promote oppression, censorship, inquisitions, and conquest over liberty. America's Founders may have been mostly Christian, but what made their revolution in government possible was not the influence of religion, but the influence of the Enlightenment.

Grand Junction Tea Party

April 13, 2009

The following column originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090413/COLUMNISTS/904129997/1062/NONE&parentprofile=1062) appeared in the April 13, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

See you at the Grand Junction Tea Party

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Finally there's a reason to feel good about April 15 again. Yes, it's tax day—and the federal government is spending more of our money than ever before. But this year the date also marks the Tax Day Tea Party, to be held in cities around Colorado and the nation. Grand Junction's tea party is scheduled for noon at 12th and North.

Part of the inspiration for the tea parties is a CNBC segment with Rick Santelli, available on YouTube, in which he called for a Chicago Tea Party. He said, "The government is promoting bad behavior... How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage, that has an extra bathroom, and can't pay their bills? ...

"You can't buy your way into prosperity. And if the multiplier that all these Washington economists are selling us is over one, then we never have to worry about the economy again. The government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we'll get 1.5 trillion back...

"If you read our founding fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves."

A transcript can't capture the passion of the moment, but it gives you some idea.

Though we're sure to disagree with some of the speakers and literature at some of the tea parties, we're thrilled that some Americans, at least, are taking a stand against bloated federal government and for liberty.

One of the speakers in Grand Junction will be Ryan Frazier, an Aurora city council member whose name keeps popping up in discussions of possible U.S. Senate candidates. We contacted Frazier to learn what he thinks about the tea parties.

Frazier said, "The Tea Parties throughout Colorado and this country represent a ground swell of citizens, in their local communities, who are motivated to restore fiscal responsibility in government. This is significant because it's grassroots at its core and it's uniting people of different backgrounds to a common purpose—Liberty."

We asked him for a preview of what he'll discuss. He answered, "Liberty. Prosperity. Opportunity. That a free, educated, strong people are the engine of a prosperous society. I will stress that the primary role of government is to protect our freedoms, not to manage our lives. Lastly, that we as individuals must stand together to advance liberty and fiscal responsibility in this country and now is the time."

Frazier said he's worried that the federal government is "running deficits year after year, resulting in a national debt that now exceeds $11 trillion and a proposed budget of over $4 trillion in 2009. This level of spending and irresponsible fiscal policy is unsustainable and ultimately will drag our potential for economic growth down over the long-term."

As we've pointed out previously, federal policy also threatens to unleash a wave of inflation. Frazier also sees this danger: "Our currency could be debased and our living standards reduced—imagine our dollar worth less and buying even less—this impacts everyone."

Frazier argued that "for economic growth, jobs and business that we need to flourish, we must achieve a limited, responsible government that does not hinder the ability of individual and economic freedom to drive forward our economy."

What? "Individual and economic freedom?" Politicians can't say things like that anymore—doesn't Frazier know that?

We're in the era not just of Big Government, but of Gargantuan Government, in which the president and his administration can pick CEOs, reorganize corporations, override private contracts, funnel your money to whatever corporate welfare they want, and reward the irresponsible with the earnings of the responsible.

We have come a long way from the government founded on the individual's rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On November 29, 1773, Sam Adams led a meeting at Faneuil Hall, the "Cradle of Liberty," to protest tea taxes that asserted British control over the colonies. On December 16, the Sons of Liberty unloaded a boatload of tea into the Boston harbor.

There is a difference between then and now: then the British government asserted unjust power over the colonies. Today, America is imposing tyranny on itself, slowly eroding the pillars of our nation with the acid of special-interest politics and the forced redistribution of wealth from the producers to the politically connected.

Without a foundation of liberty and individual rights, the new tea parties will lead nowhere. What we need is a restoration of the ideal of the individual's right to lead his own life, make his own choices consistent with the rights of others, and direct the fruits of his labor as he sees fit, rather than as politicians demand.

We can be the Grandsons and Granddaughters of Liberty.

Playboy's Prayer

April 14, 2009

As a interesting follow-up to Easter, Fox hosts a (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514917,00.html) story about a former Playboy Bunny:

Kendra Wilkinson is known across the world as being Hugh Hefner's wonderfully wild former flame, but since moving out of the Playboy mansion and getting engaged to Philadelphia Eagle Hank Baskett, it seems Wilkinson is choosing prayers over posing.

"Hank makes her pray before meals now. His family is so religious and he really calmed her down a lot, he's good for her," Kendra's bridesmaid and playmate Brittany Ginger told Tarts, with Kendra adding that praying is a new experience that has helped her change "for the better."

But we may wonder how truly converted Wilkinson is. She said, "...Hef opened up doors for me... It was my job to make the right decisions and go about my life from there... He was a father figure for me; he gave me wings and appreciated me for me. You can see the blonde/big boobs thing but he actually appreciated me for me, I always knew that about him. He gave me such happiness, having his eyes on me gave me confidence just to be me and find Hank."

Oh, and, by the way, the wedding will take place at the Playboy Mansion. How absolutely bizarre.

The point here is that, while a lot of people claim to believe in God, some of those people don't really take religion all that seriously. Unfortunately, many of the same people don't seem to take much of anything seriously. There can be worse fates than religion.

U.S. Department of Smear and Innuendo

April 15, 2009

Gee, what a coincidence that a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (http://www.gordonunleashed.com/HSA%20-%20Rightwing%20Extremism%20-%2009%2004%2007.pdf) report on "rightwing extremism" has hit the (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/14/extremism.report/index.html) media the day before the Tea Parties will take place around the nation.

You see, neo-Nazis are "rightwing," and so are the Tea Parties! QED. (I especially love the fact that CNN purchased a photograph of neo-Nazis from Getty Images to accompany its report. Crack reporting, there.)

The report itself is juvenile propaganda, filled with phrases like "no specific information," "may be," "could create," "could lead," "likely would," and so on.

The report considers a "rightwing extremist" one who is "antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely." I myself (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/woods-05-nothing-to-apologize-for.html) have criticized neo-Confederate sentiments. The problem with the report is that it fails to distinguish robust federalism, in which the power of the federal government is properly restrained, from unlimited "federal authority." But exactly what sort of "federal authority" may I oppose without the U.S. Department of Homeland Security boxing me in with violent racists?

We need a Jeff Foxworthy routine for this. "You might be a rightwing extremist if..."

If you dare to question the all-encompassing authority of the Obama administration.

If you have purchased "weapons and ammunition... in anticipation of restrictions and bans."

If you are a "returning veteran" with "combat skills and experience."

If you "chatter on the Internet" about "the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures." (I guess that's everybody with an internet connection.)

If you are "antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms." (I score only one for three here. I do oppose "expansion of [tax funded] social programs" across the board, but I don't know whether that makes me more or less "extreme.")

If you "perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to [your] right to bear arms."

If you worry about "Russia's control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries." (Putin? Who's worried? Heck of a nice guy!)

I do not mean here to diminish the significance of ugly racism in America. It is possible that the rough economy, in conjunction with the election of the first black president, has slightly increased interest in racist propaganda. If so, that must be opposed in all quarters.

The problem with this nonsense report, though, is that it clumsily—and unjustly—groups together attitudes that are not only logically disconnected but logically antagonistic.

Person A is a violent racist, hates immigrants, and wants to impose a theocratic state that (among other things) bans abortion.

Person B abhors racism, advocates individual rights for all, advocates government limited to that purpose, and believes the Second Amendment means what it says.

These people share nothing in common (except perhaps mutual loathing). Yet both are branded "rightwing extremists."

According to the report, "Rightwing extremism... may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." That's just ridiculous. As much as I disagree with those who want to restrict immigration or ban abortion, those folks don't deserve to be categorized with those expressing "hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups." (I do, however, hate particular religious groups that advocate terrorism or violence against women, so, darn it all, I am again "extremist.")

Just remember as you read this moronic "report" that this is the same outfit charged with protecting us from terrorists. How comforting. And what a spectacular use of our tax dollars.

I have no doubt that the Tea Parties will bring out some kooks. Every big rally does that, whether it leans left, right, or other. I'm sure I'll see some anti-abortion signs and other messages with which I profoundly disagree. People will come with their own agendas. The People's Press Collective (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rally-distruptors-flyer1.pdf) offers some useful tips for dealing with left-wing antagonists and right-wing idiots alike.

My agenda is the same as it has always been. I will advocate liberty and individual rights. Even if some pencil-pushing bureaucrat thinks that makes me a "rightwing extremist."

Comment by Jacob: You are so right.. This is an outrage that the government can come in a label people who are pro-life or don't like the direction obabma is taking the country in as right-wing extremists. This is why people are worried about the Obama administration, because they are doing what other "socialist" governments have done in the past and try to silence any oppostion. Tell me where the George Bush Administration try to silence any left-wing organziations. If anything the left-wing organziations flourished under George Bush ie.. Media Matters, Moveon.org etc... I say this as a black man that I am worried on what Obama is doing.. He needs to stop bending over and start acting like a President who is proud of this country and If not then he can expect not to have my vote in the next election and I will do everything in my power to insure he losess. I do not say with any glee but sorrow as I can not stand by and watch this country crumble as I want my children to grow up in the great country we call AMERICA!!

Comment by FRANZ SCHULTZ: If we forget history, allow only one media message-theirs,+ have only one party-theirs, then we, right leaning wing-nuts, will have learned to get along with others-the socialist left. We will then depend on their approval-which we will never get(like always), and no matter what they come up with or say...We will always say,'THAT'S A GOOD IDEA'(i can't hear you). Some will require more shock therapy than others to achieve this level of enlightenment, but THEY, the benevolent left, will spare no expense(our tax dollars) to apply any help their fellow Americans,(really just us right leaning wing-nuts)need to help our minds ~CHANGE~ to be just like theirs.

Comment by Anonymous: I like how you missed the part at the end about how a) the Obama administration sent out a similar report about left-wing extremists and b) the Bush administration started both reports. But, you know, whatever.

Comment by BullShark29: 1st time commenter, but standard outstanding post Mr. Armstrong. It reminds me how freethinking, evidence-demanding, reasoning individuals get boxed in to the "atheist" container and their views are immediately dismissed. I really enjoy your blog. Thank you.

Comment by Hates hoops: It has been said before; government is only able to control criminals. If there aren't enough criminals, more laws will ensure that there will be.

Denver Daily's Smear Job

April 15, 2009

This Denver Daily News (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=3920) article by Peter Marcus is an example of journalism at its absolute worst:

Immigration enforcement advocates will gather in Denver this Tax Day to argue that taxpayers carry a heavy financial burden because the government does not do enough to enforce its current immigration laws.

The rally at the Capitol this afternoon is part of a national movement called the Tax Day Tea Party. The grassroots campaign asks Americans to encourage lawmakers to stop "out of control government spending." Part of the dialogue includes illegal immigration.

The headline states, "Anti-illegal immigration protesters to hold Tax Day Tea Party today."

I left the online comment, "Peter Marcus's article is a dishonest smear job. While it is true that some people associated with the 'Tax Day Tea Party' rallies want immigration restrictions, that is certainly not the focus of the rallies. Many of us will attend the rallies to promote free markets, including open immigration."

One local organizer (http://facethestate.com/buzz/15437-denver-tea-party-planner-makes-appearance-fox-news) says the point of the rally is to "promote a message of limited government and lower taxes."

The Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=55245811298&ref=mf) page for "The Denver Tax Day Tea Party" states, "Join your fellow Americans as we rally our elected officials to repeal the 'Stimulus' package, reduce our taxes and eliminate wasteful spending in government!" The term "immigration" appears nowhere on the page. Not once.

The "Tax Day Tea Party" (http://taxdayteaparty.com/about/) web page states that the nationwide rallies are about the "pork filled budget," the "free-market system," and "out of control government spending." (To learn why the "free-market system" entails open immigration, read Craig Biddle's (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights.asp) excellent article on the matter.)

Nowhere have I picked up the idea that these rallies are about "immigration enforcement." The fact that some random dude from "Americans for Legal Immigration PAC" wants to hijack the Denver rally does not change the rally's advertised purpose.

Ah, but "part of the dialogue includes illegal immigration." And part of the the Denver Daily News includes real news. Just not the part where Marcus's story appears.

Comment by WalterB: The News has posted a minor correction on its site, but the damage is done. I'm not familiar with the News, so I won't pass judgement in this case, but this is a common ploy in the media—run a harmful and prominent story, then run a correction no one is likely to read—mission accomplished.

Denver Tax Day Tea Party

April 15, 2009

The Denver Tax Day Tea Party was a limited success. People flowed over the capitol steps down to the street below. The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12147073) estimates a crowd of "more than 5,000." Sounds like a fair guess to me. I'll post my initial thoughts for now (at about 2:40); later I'll add extensive photographs and audio interviews of the event. (I'll create a second post.)

I got there about 10:15. I would have arrived earlier had I realized my (http://blogsearch.google.com/?bl_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freecolorado.com%2F&ui=blg&as_q=huttner) good friend Michael Huttner was putting on a 10:00 news conference in praise of President Obama's policies.

The audio system was inadequate for the crowd. I heard perhaps a minute of the speeches. Those on the upper steps and away from the loudspeakers could hear practically nothing of the official program. I figured others were capturing the audio of the speakers, so I could work the periphery. I conducted numerous short interviews with ralliers and took even more photos. My goal was to see what the typical person who showed up thought about things.

In the course of this, I also ran across a few people with off-topic messages, particularly in opposition to immigration and abortion (as I predicted (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-dailys-smear-job.html) here and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/us-department-of-smear-and-innuendo.html) here).

The basic message of most of the ralliers that I talked with is that they're tired of out-of-control federal spending and disgusted with the debt passed on to their children and grandchildren. A few people had more to say about state policy as well.

I had a very nice conversation with a Democratic couple that came to see what the conservatives were up to. Though we disagree about economic policy and the proper role of government, we also found some common ground and had a nice chat (that will go online).

At one point I saw some young kids wearing masks and carrying "end the Fed" signs. I got the photo, as I wanted to show the goofiness as well as the typical rallier. (I disfavor the Federal Reserve, but I don't think wearing silly masks to a rally will help the cause.) I saw a well-dressed young guy approach the kids with another fellow operating a high-end video camera. It was pretty obvious where that was headed. Indeed, soon the guy conducting the interviews started the chant, "end the Fed," which the kids were happy to take up enthusiastically. Clearly this was not a real news crew. Nevertheless, the fellow conducting video interviews and I had a fairly interesting conversation, which we both recorded.

As I mentioned to a friend, my two biggest concerns with the rally were that it was fairly partisan (even though two Republicans I talked with actually presented the strongest criticisms of W. Bush), and it contained some mixed messages. While anti-immigration and anti-abortion messages constituted a small part of what I saw, clearly there remain some serious rifts within the conservative or broadly "right" movement. (I think it's a mistake to call my beliefs either conservative or right-wing, but I do have many conservative friends—as I have leftist friends—and others tend to lump me in with the right because I advocate free markets.)

I took off around 1:15, though the speakers were still at it. Note to rally organizers: don't plan a rally that includes more that 45 minutes of speaking, especially on a hot day. A lot of people were leaving with me. I was getting a little dehydrated, too, and I had water in my car.

It's going to take me awhile to process my digital files, so check back later...

Comment by Wayne Laugesen: Ari, congrats on your award which is very well deserved. I have an editorial about the Colorado Springs protest and others that your readers might find interesting. It lightly chastises conservatives for politicizing socialist policies largely initiated by Republicans. It's at: http://www.gazette.com/opinion/government_51901___article.html/spending_conservatives.html

Comment by Mason: Ari, First of all, I would like to say I am not trying to start an argument. In fact, I would like to further our converstaion if possible. However, I ask you to stay centered when you read my response to the "silly mask" wearing "kids" at the protest. It is a wonder ANY of the protest-radicals at the tea party would have a problem with kids wearing bandanas. To clear things up, I was one of the bandana-clad protestors. I am 21 years old, and I own an internet advertising company. I paid more in taxes this year than most of the sunshine patriots that showed up on wednsday ($177,000 to be exact). I had EVERY right to wear a bandana. I ask myself why the republicans lost the election in November. THIS is why If the people cannot see that an ENEMY of their ENEMY is their FRIEND, then how the hell is anyone going to make progress? We were their supporting a similar cause. WE WERE NON-VIOLENT. We were also among the ONLY people at the protest with a NON-PARTISAN approach. You should be slandering the people who allowed the press to make the event into an ANTI-OBAMA protest ...which it was not Clinton opened the sub-prime market dilemma with the gramm-leach-bliley act Bush pushed our spending into overdrive with the wars (not even going to mention the anti-american patriot acts)
Bush also started the BAILOUTS, long before there was a bailout big enough to be called THE BAILOUT Obama pushed it over the edge with the Stimulus. And we QUICKLY figured out what the camerman was doing. WE started chanting END THE FED when he made an attempt to be a comedian. Remember... The ORIGINAL Boston Tea Party radicals dressed up as Native American Indians We're we THAT ridiculous dressing up as bankers? Looking forward to have an intelligent conversation with you. Best Regards,
Mason

Comment by Ari: My e-mail is listed on my web page. Calling you "silly" hardly falls under the category of slander. I'm glad you made a bunch of money, and I recognize your right to every dollar you earned. I do not question your right to be there or to wear a bandana. My point pertains to the effectiveness of your message. Are you going to persuade anyone, with those signs and masks, that the Federal Reserve is a bad idea? The answer is no. Resoundingly no. All you're going to do is convince people who see your photo all over the place that you're a bunch of unserious kids with a goofy message. If you want to convince people, come out with normal attire and a good argument. The Boston Tea Party was against British oppression. Today we're challenging our misguided fellow Americans. Tailor your message appropriately. I appreciate your enthusiasm. I ask only that you think about how to direct your enthusiasm to the most productive ends. Is your goal to get attention, or to make a difference?

Comment by Fester: If these "kids" were wearing bandannas across their faces, I think it is completely appropriate. First off the bandanna is the traditional mask for the robbers of the old west, and the federal reserve and the government are the ones robbing us blind now. Secondly, I don't believe it is any secret these days that everyone who is against the governments unjust actions are now considered to be potential "terrorists" as was acknowledged my the MAIC report, and as you probably remember Denver is notorious for its "spy" files which mostly consisted of documenting every person who showed up to a protest. It seems to me that it only makes good sense to make it as hard for the government to identify you if you are truly presenting an anti-government message. If you are just a republican apologist then you don't have anything to worry about, but if you truly believe that the state is the enemy then why make it easy for them to identify you, just so they can put you on there no fly list, and start to build a "spy" file on you?

Comment by Ari: Look, if you don't want to take the risk of getting tracked by government agents, and you don't care anything about presenting your message to the public in a way that doesn't completely alienate people, then the answer is simple: don't come to a public rally. You're simultaneously hurting your cause AND risking government tracking. I know full well about the Denver "spy files"—I was in them. My attitude is that I sincerely hope the Denver police, FBI, CBI, and every other possible government agency is reading my web page—they just might learn something. But if you really think coming to a rally wearing masks and yelling "end the fed" is actually going to do anything to reform the Federal Reserve, you're just an idiot, and I'm simply too busy to devote more time to you.

Denver Tea Party Ralliers In Their Own Words

April 15, 2009

The Denver Tax Day Tea Party drew several thousand people to the capitol. Why did they come? What do they think? I interviewed several dozen ralliers and compiled their comments in a 25 minute (http://www.vulomedia.com/audio/audiofiles/26590tea.mp3) audio file. (If the previous link fails, try the (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2009/tea/tea.mp3) backup.) [The YouTube link is live.

In my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-tax-day-tea-party.html) first article I make some general notes about the event. Here my goal is to compile photographs and audio interviews of typical ralliers whose messages were basically in the spirit of the event (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-dailys-smear-job.html) as advertised. I had originally planned to do a third article covering off-point messages, two agitators (self-styled comedians), and a Democratic "liberal" couple, but this article took me longer to create than I anticipated, and the other material is of lesser interest.

I have a very short (http://www.freecolorado.com/files/2009/tea/tea.mov) video of the crowd. Also check out El Presidente's (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/04/denver-tea-party-tax-day-rally-coverage-photos-and-video/) outstanding collection of photos and videos of the event, as well as reports by (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/04/tea-parties-nationwide-reactions-and-reports/) Mr. Bob, (http://bendegrow.com/2009/tax-day-tea-party-colorado/) Ben DeGrow, (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/04/post-tea-party-thoughts/) Rossputin, and (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/04/denver-tax-day-tea-party-estimate-the-crowd-size/) Thomas James.

[Update August 16, 2025: I'm including select photos from the original files.]

Peter Perry of Centennial, a volunteer with FreedomWorks, advocates "lower taxes, less government, and more freedom." "Get back to the original Constitution," he urges. "We cannot become a nation of debt, nothing but debt, debt all the time." He added, "This is the first time I've been involved, and I think that's a significant change for me... I'm hoping that more concerned citizens are becoming involved."

Thomas James of the (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) People's Press Collective explained the goals of that organization. About the rally, he said, "I hope that the elected officials who this is aimed at... develop an awareness that the people are not happy with what they are doing, are not happy with the taxing, spending, government growth, irresponsibility, and that people are waking up and they want their liberty back."

Anthony Gillis of "Colorado Tea Party"—a distinct group from the rally's organizers—said, "We need to take a stand for liberty and for our livelihoods... The spending is simply out of control, and with it goes a grab for power, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. Peacefully, through the democratic process, we need to stand up for our rights now, and it's going to be a sustained effort."

Valentina Montague attended the rally with her daughter Christine and granddaughter Lindsey. Valentina said, "I am a grandmother... and I am concerned for their future and the future of our country."

Lance Olsen voiced concern about "taxes across the board at the local and state level." He also advocate transparency in government spending, achieved by putting all spending records online.

Cindy Johnson said Congress and the President are "out of control, spending too much money." Alexandra Harden pointed out, "Most of the people who share our views are working right now, to pay the taxes that they live off of."

Ed Carter came to the rally with his son Branden. Ed said he attended "to try and take this government back for the people, basicaly what the Constitution is all about, that we have the power, and I think we've let it slip away to people who don't have the best interests of this country at hand... I think we're being taxed, not to prosperity, but to the opposite end, and we need to get back to what our forefathers intended this country to be all about."

Skip said, "We're sick and tired of it, no earmarks!" Carol added, "I have eight grandchildren, one of them is 22, she's in college, she's going to have to pay the brunt of paying this off, and so are my other grandchildren. And I'm mad as hell about it, too. Our kids shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's misappropriation of funds."

Bob said, "I think a lot of this is due to our government spending. People are just fed up with it." Bob also expressed concerns about businesses "going over seas," which I don't regard as a problem in itself. However, various federal policies encourage many businesses to move overseas by artificially increasing the costs of doing business at home, and that should be stopped.

Terry said, "I'm sorry of seeing the Constitution stepped on. I'm sick and tired of it. It hasn't started just now. Government is out of control, they're spending money left and right, and I'm just mad about it."

Bob Tender said, "The government is spending too much money. Congress doesn't even read its own bills, comes up with stimulus that has hidden pork in it, taking away our future, taking away our kids' future, taking away our grandchildrens' future. That's why I'm here." Barbara Benito, who supported Obama during the election, added, "I want to see my money spent responsibly, and I want to make sure there's accountability."

Dave Wiliams (not shown) of the (http://gadsdensoc.com/) Gadsden Society said, "It's got to go beyond today. People have got to stay involved, get involved, show up, and continue to make a difference."

Sandy said, "The government is out of control with all their spending. My grandchildren are already $187,000 in debt. It's too much, and it needs to stop." Kay added, "Congress is out of control... to pass a bill that they didn't even read is absolute irresponsibility."

Marilyn was "concerned about the taxing and the spending." Pam said, "We're concerned with our kids' future, our grandchildrens' future, and what's going to be left for them? And they're asking the same thing."

Mel, who served in Vietnam in the Air Force, said, "I didn't serve 22 years for socialism... I feel this taxation and also overspending of the budget is definitely wrong. It's a free-enterprise country. If you can't run your company, you should resign or default, and not have the government pulling you out." Sharon, who served 20 years in the Air Force, fears Obama is "pro-socialism. We're a capitalist country, and thank god of it."

(http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/) El Presidente himself (with the video camera).

Alex Hornaday complained about the "complete irresponsibility in an administration from a party that spend so much time complaining about" the previous administration.

Ryan Call, chair of the Denver County Republican Party, said, "I'm excited, to look at how many people came out for this event, talking about less government regulation, lower taxes, and all these kinds of things that make America great." Steve Schultz, chair of the Clear Creak GOP, wants to "return the country to the roots it was founded on, because we're going farther and farther away all the time." Both men granted that the Bush administration and some other Republican leaders "didn't live up to many of the principles that we think the party has long stood for," meaning "fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and freedom."

Melissa Peters said, "I came to support the Tea Party because I disagree with all the spending going on in Congress today."

"We're here because we really feel our government is going in the wrong direction, and we feel we need to speak out."

George Palmentaro said, "A lot of us served our country. I don't think it should be sold by the administration."

Ron Lewis said, "I'm here to join with my fellow Americans, to stand against unconstitutional policies in our government, and to let the government know that we're tired." Ron also argued that the Federal Reserve should be abolished.

Linda, who attended the rally with Marie, complained about "the taxes, the bailouts, the pork, Fannie May, Freddie Mac."

Comment by atlas100: Great photos! I had a great time with the crowd yesterday. You can see my photos here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/35276702@N08/sets/72157616823564234/

Comment by Ryan: Some of the signs seem to reference the read the bills act:
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27

Comment by Anonymous: Tea party—Saturday 22 Aug. Speak out about government healthcare at a government healthcare public event! New VA Medical Center Ground-breaking. Saturday, 22 August, next to Children's Hospital off of Colfax Blvd. in Aurora. The Sec. VA, US Senators, US Congressmen, Gov Ritter, local and national media, and 500 more invited guests will be there so why not you!

John Lewis at Tea Party

April 16, 2009

John Lewis gave a great speech at the Tea Party in Charlotte:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqoOHWhNR1Q

Photos from Grand Junction's Tea Party

April 17, 2009

Gene Kinsey has posted a few photos of Grand Junction's Tea Party (http://livingthegrandlife.blogspot.com/2009/04/tea-party-grand-junction-coloradotea.html) here and (http://livingthegrandlife.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-pictures-from-tea-party.html) here.

The Daily Sentinel has also posted a nice set of (http://www.gjsentinel.com/ap/mediahub/media/slideshow/index.jsp?tId=152544) photos of the event as well as a video of Ryan Frazier's talk, currently linked from the (http://www.gjsentinel.com/) front page.

If anybody else has good links to photos for Tea Parties around Colorado outside of Denver, feel free to leave a comment.

Dr. Laura: Gay Partnership 'A Beautiful Thing'

April 20, 2009

I don't recall who pointed out this (http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/dr-laura-says-gay-couples-are-beautiful.html) interesting blog post, but the linked segment from Larry King offers a nice, if somewhat surprising, quote from Dr. Laura Schlessinger:

I am very big on human beings finding love, attachment, and commitment, and being faithful to it, because there's more to benefit when there's real true commitment and faithfulness to it.

I still believe as every president has, and all the people who ran for office, that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, and so not calling it [a same-sex relationship] marriage works for me. But that two people would have that sort of commitment to me is very healthy, and a very positive thing in their lives and society as a whole. ... That's a beautiful thing, and a healthy thing.

That's a nice gesture.

Back from the Sammies

April 20, 2009

I just got back from the Sam Adams Alliance awards ceremony in Chicago, where I picked up my "Sammie." (See the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/freecoloradocom-wins-sam-adams-award.html) earlier release.) I also recorded interviews with Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, Michelle Malkin, Paul Jacob, and others. I will make these interviews available this week.

I was impressed by the activism of the other award winners, who fought voter fraud, tax hikes, inappropriate spending, unjust laws, and more.

I'll have much more to say about the event later, but now I'm wiped out and need to catch up on my sleep.

First I figure I ought to send a statement to a few journalists. How about this: "The spirit of liberty was alive and well at the Sam Adams Alliance awards ceremony April 18 in Chicago. I am grateful to the Alliance for the 'Sammie' award I received, and I am inspired by the outstanding work of the other award recipients. I met some new friends and picked up some new ideas for advancing individual rights here in Colorado. I also recorded some fascinating interviews with Joe 'The Plumber' Wurzelbacher, Michelle Malkin, and Paul Jacob that I'll release this week. I'm deeply grateful to Colorado's vibrant and growing movement of liberty activists who have given me so much support and encouragement over the years."

Hopefully the Sam Adams Alliance will make the speeches available on the internet before long. See the complete (http://tinyurl.com/cyaltw) list of winners.

Sammies In Photos

April 20, 2009

I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/back-from-sammies.html) went to the Sam Adams Alliance awards ceremony April 18 to receive the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/freecoloradocom-wins-sam-adams-award.html) Modern Day Sam Adams Award. Chad Everson, another award winner, posts additional photos over at (http://grizzlygroundswell.theodoremedia.com/archives/6392) Grizzly Groundswell.

Michelle Malkin talks with John Fund.

Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher chats about his new book.

John Tsarpalas, president of the Sam Adams Alliance, meets with Fred Baldwin, another of this year's award winners.

I stand with Paul Jacob, who introduced me and also won the Sam Adams Lifetime Award, and John.

Michelle, Paul, and Joe struck me as a good photo-op.

James Bell "of Lithia Springs, Georgia, won the $5,000 Tea Party Award for his work in defeating two sales tax increases and proposing a bill, which in 2008 became Georgia law, restricting local government from holding tax votes on special elections." I also recorded an audio interview with Jim.

Comment by Ben DeGrow: Well-deserved congrats again, Ari. There are also more pics of the event here, taken by Chetly Zarko from OutsideLansing.com:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=119148&id=681040089&ref=nf#/album.php?page=2&aid=119148&id=681040089

Comment by Patrick Sperry: Congrats on the award Ari, and well deserved I might add!

Emotionalist Worship

April 21, 2009

(http://flibbertigibbet.mu.nu/proof_that_religion_is_nonsense) Thanks to Flibbert, I ran across two bizarrely interesting videos of religious worship.

In the first, a toddler walks around the stage spouting impassioned nonsense in the style of an old-time country sermon.

In the second, (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/marjoe.htm) Marjoe Gortner continues to pretend to be a faith healer for a time even after he has become convinced that it's all nonsense.

One message to take from this is that some people are just goofy. They do things that make no sense. This is true whether they package their nonsense in religion or something else.

However, there is an especial tendency with religion, grounded as it is in faith, to promote emotionalist, cathartic practices quite separated from any understanding of reality. While religion at its best is quite sophisticated and intellectual, religion's popular manifestations seem to lean toward the other variety.

[September 14, 2014 Update: The videos in question are no longer available.]

Meniskus 'Partier' Coming

April 21, 2009

Last night my wife and I went with a friend to the (http://www.boulderdrafthouse.com/) Draft House in Boulder (great chocolate stout and "pork roll" sandwich!) to see (http://meniskusband.com/) Meniskus, a band that I am becoming increasingly impressed with.

Do yourself a favor and go to iTunes to download at least "Letters" and "Overbearing (Part 2)," both available on the Foreign Beyond album. If you like these tracks, then you'll like Meniskus, and you'll become excited to learn...

Meniskus is recording their third album, and it will include "Partier." (I don't know if that's the song's official name, but everybody's going to call it "Partier" anyway.) It seems to me that, if Meniskus is going to have a breakthrough hit, it's going to be "Partier." Then, I hope that a lot of people drawn to that popish, rhythmic party song look into the previous albums.

We're blessed with some very good music in Colorado. (http://devotchka.net/) DeVotchKa is one of my favorite groups of all time. Meniskus is working up the list, and I really wish these guys success.

* * *

In other music news, I was excited to see that Depeche Mode has a new album out that Amazon is selling for $3.99 for today only. The first track was bizarre and off-putting in the preview, but the other tracks sound interesting. I figured that for four bucks it's hard to go wrong. Unfortunately, after buying the album and downloading Amazon's mp3 downloader, I got nothing. But I called Amazon on the phone, and they solved the problem very quickly. So, yea for real customer service.

Comment by Coupe Studios Music and Sound Design: Hope to see you at the release party for The Partier tomorrow night at The Fox! We just finished mastering the final mix here at Coupe about 5 minutes ago. It sounds pretty amazing...

Interviews at the Sam Adams Alliance Awards

April 22, 2009

I attended the Sam Adams Alliance awards April 18. While there, I interviewed Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, Paul Jacob, Michelle Malkin, and John Tsarpalas (president of the Alliance).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-sNkM5H7cs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQOsg3DMLHs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EaBv568bao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3UHNbGznoE

Speech at the Sam Adams Alliance Awards

April 22, 2009

[I believe this photo was from Chetly Zarko from OutsideLansing.com, but I'm not sure.]

I received the Modern Day Sam Adams (http://www.samadamsalliance.org/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-news&id=941%3Ahundreds-gather-to-celebrate-freedom-and-liberty-at-the-2nd-annual-sammies-awards&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content) award April 18 in Chicago. Following is a transcript of my speech.

I am deeply honored, and indeed deeply humbled, to be with the other award winners this evening, and to be introduced by Paul Jacob, a true hero of liberty.

I'm also very grateful to the Sam Adams Alliance for recognizing the sort of regional activism where the crucial battles for liberty are fought.

If you look at Congress, you'll notice that practically every member of Congress and practically all of their staffers came up the ranks in state and local politics. And the ideas that they reflect in Washington are to a large degree the ideas that they learned back in their home towns.

The regional level is where we can go to events, attend meetings, make phone calls, develop long-term relationships with real people, not just policy wonks, and build a movement for liberty.

So I do think that we as a freedom movement need to do more to support this sort of free market activism as illustrated by my fellow award winners.

The sort of work done by people in my home state like Jon Caldara and Dave Kopel and the (http://i2i.org/) Independence Institute.

Paul Hsieh of (http://westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Amanda Teresi and the whole crew of (http://www.libertyontherocks.com/) Liberty On the Rocks.

Joe Weaver who provides many of us technical support, who is sitting at this table, or at the back at the technical desk, in this very room.

People like Dave Williams and the (http://gadsdensoc.com/) Gadsden Society.

People like Michael Sandoval and Thomas James and the entire crew of the (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) People's Press Collective.

People like Betty Evans and Diana Hsieh of (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/) Front Range Objectivism.

Individuals who speak and write, such as (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) Brian Schwartz, Linda Gorman, Earl Allen, and my own father, Linn.

People who are concerned with free-market economics, like Ken Riggs, Penn Pfiffner, and Paul Prentice.

And of course my ever-supportive wife, Jennifer.

I am here largely because of the support of their shoulders.

So together we can Free Colorado, and we can free our great nation. Thank you.

True Tolerance, Or Else

April 23, 2009

Via 5280 magazine I found the Focus on the Family (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009794.cfm) "true tolerance" web page, the point of which is to promote tolerance of anti-homosexual views. In other words, we are to tolerate intolerance.

And I quite agree that we do need to tolerate intolerance, even as we speak out against nasty sorts of intolerance. That is, the view that homosexuality is somehow inherently sinful is wrong. However, people properly have the right to express (with their own resources) whatever viewpoint they wish.

The matter is complicated by the tax funding of schools. Taking people's money by force to finance either a pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual agenda is wrong and a violation of free speech. Tax funded institutions invite governmental oversight, including protections of speech.

While tax-funded schools cannot properly promote religious views, neither can they properly suppress such views by students in the appropriate context.

And Focus on the Family wants to make darn sure that schools recognize that. The (http://www.truetolerance.org/Complete_Package.pdf) document "What School Officials Should Know About Addressing Homosexuality in Public Schools" helpfully warns schools about adopting policies that "could very easily result in litigation."

Of course, some traditionalists might argue that the proper purpose of school is to teach students about the world and skills for dealing with it, rather than to push for or against some cultural or political agenda.

Comment by bodaciousboi: As a public policy researcher, I challenged three researchers for a conservative think tank to find one honest, factual and accurate statement on the Focus on the Family website. I offered a hundred dollars for every fact that checked out. I kept all of my money.
The fundamentalist right relies completely on fear, bigotry and an immense amount of dishonesty to agitate hatred for the gay community. Yes, its wrong and un-Christ like, but we can expect more of the same, as it elicits lots of donations.

Poor Country, Rich Country II

April 23, 2009

More than four years ago I wrote a quick (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/01/progress.html) article titled, "Poor Country, Rich Country." The point was to give a few examples indicating the economic development of a nation. (Note that I no longer think a low-fat diet is optimal.) The interesting thing about the article is that since then I've received an occasional reply to it, I think exclusively from readers in India.

Here's a comment I received just today:

Sir,

Interesting reading your study, rather work in progress, about the comaprative study of rich-developing-poor countries. I would like to add some points.

1. In poor countries, people think of the next meal. In developing countries, people think of savings for the next few years, and in rich countries, people find new ways to invest the wealth and reap more benefits.

2. In poor countries, shelter is a necessity, in developing countries, a home to all is the target of the government, and in rich countries, they are after innovative , luxurious and romantic shelters.

3. Creches and old age homes are new words to poor countries. Developing countries are developing more such homes and in rich countries , they can't live without creches and old age homes.

That's all for now. Thanks a lot for your article.

Bye
Suja Ramesh

Perhaps it is the Indian cinematic flair that has captured my attention, or Gandhi's respect for Thomas Jefferson. India seems to be moving forward, embracing a dynamic and free society. I realize the nation continues to suffer a great many problems, yet I can't help but cheer whenever I hear good news from India. I wish Suja and his countrymen the very best.

The Meaning of Secularism

April 24, 2009

Secularism, like atheism, is not a positive set of ideas. The most straightforward definition of "secular" from Dictionary.com is "not pertaining to or connected with religion." The term describes only one thing something is not—religious—not what it is.

Secularlism is not a philosophy. The mere fact that a person is (or claims to be, or is claimed to be) secular tells us nothing about what it is the person does believe.

Yet the Christian right has a vested interested in tarring secularists as nihilists. It is easy to see the motive behind the strategy: if the only alternative to Christianity is nihilism, Christianity wins by default.

After running through polling data on out-of-wedlock births, abortion, and homosexuality, Star Parker (http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/04/13/christian_conservatism_just_getting_started?page=1) writes:

The public schools that are educating the majority of America's children have been increasingly secularized and politicized. The work place has been purged of biblical ethics. All public space is darkened by lawless and vulgar lasciviousness and becoming increasingly intolerant of practicing Christians.

The result is that secular Americans have had a disproportionate impact on our country over recent years and biblical Americans are now fighting back with their voting rights.

Nice trick: secularists are equated with "lawless and vulgar lasciviousness."

The Christians, on the other hand, are committed to America's "founding principles of traditional values and limited government."

Anyone who believes those are actually the choices must go with Christianity.

Those are not the choices.

The third way is a philosophy that happens to be secular (not religious) and that recognizes that our nature as rational, autonomous beings gives rise to our inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. A philosophy that seeks positive values rooted in the requirements of human life.

Meanwhile, are the Christians truly committed to a government limited to individual rights? No.

On the economic front, many Christians advocate a massive welfare state on the grounds that we are our brother's keeper. Christians increasingly promote the environmentalist agenda on the grounds that God commanded us to care for the earth, even at the expense of human well-being and liberty.

On the social front, many Christians want to ban all or nearly all abortion from the moment of conception, on the grounds that God infused a fertilized egg with a soul, which would (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) endanger the lives of some women and threaten a police state.

Many Christians call for censorship of unsavory materials, more political controls on drugs and personal behavior, and legal discrimination against homosexuals.

At best, the Christian right is a fickle friend of liberty.

Thankfully, there is an alternative [Atlas Shrugged] to secular nihilism and Christian mysticism.

Comment by roshnai: Thanks for the article. Here in India we have a different problem related to Secularism. The main ruling party claimed to be secular for decades, at the same time giving special rights and reservations to minority religions and backward casts. They in effect divided the society further. The principal opposition party(Hindutva) exploits this issue terming it as pseudo-secularism and ironically in the same breath talk about Hindu rights and building temples. Interesting times we are having here, both party(and even the rest, which claim to be secular but play cast-based politics) do not want to realise that secularism is not even a virtue—as you have mentioned rightly—its definition is the negation of something else. Secularism in itself does not have a meaning. Thanks

Hello, 21st Century

April 24, 2009

FreeColorado.com (originally co-freedom.com) was founded near the end of the 20th Century, before the term "blog" was even coined. (I just switched the page over to a blog format last year; before that I hand-coded everything with help from my "HTML For Dummies" book.)

I figured it was time to join the 21st Century.

I now have a FaceBook page for "Free Colorado." So now there are two ways to track what's going on here (in addition to just checking the web page regularly): you can join the e-mail list (run through MailChimp—see the link at right), or you can join the FaceBook group. (You can join both, though I plan to send basically the same material through both channels.)

Until this week, I'd uploaded all my photos and audio files straight to my server. The problem is that my server limits my disk space as well as my bandwidth. So I've been checking out alternative ways to host the bigger files.

I decided to set up a Flickr account for photos. I figured that this Yahoo-owned service would stick around.

Any audio recording under ten minutes can be turned into a YouTube video with stills: earlier in the week I posted (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/interviews-at-sam-adams-alliance-awards.html) four interviews this way.

I still don't have a good option for longer, straight mp3 files. Perhaps iTunes could handle them. I discovered (http://www.vulomedia.com/) VuloMedia.com, but a friend suggested that these small hosters might not stick around.

I contacted Jason Steele of SecretAgentBob.com about VuloMedia, and here's what he had to say:

Hey Ari,

I currently have no plans to earn money with VuloMedia. It doesn't cost much to host the site, and in order to make any sort of decent revenue I would have to add so many advertisements that the usability of the service would take a hit. Which is what made me launch the site in the first place—the file hosts I had been using became frustrating to deal with. I consider it a public service of sorts.

The site has been running for about three years now, and I plan on keeping it running as long as I can, hopefully for many many years to come.

As for your final question, yes, you retain full ownership of everything you upload.

- Jason

I did host (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-tea-party-ralliers-in-their-own.html) one audio file through Vulo, though I left a copy with my server, too. Vulo, at least, is very easy to use and scores big points for elegance.

The rapid advances of computers and the internet are revolutionizing the ways that we record and share information. It has been deeply exciting to see the progress from my 300 baud modem connected to the kitchen phone jack by strings of wire running through the hall to my modern setup.

Perhaps this dinosaur can learn to sprout a few feathers.

Faith-Based Education

April 26, 2009

As the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12117159) reported earlier in the month, Peter Groff has moved from Colorado's State Senate to the Department of Education's "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Center."

Wait a minute—we have not only faith-based welfare but faith-based education? Pray tell, what use does the Department of Education have for a faith-based program? The Post quotes a media release about how Groff will "help empower faith-based and community groups, enlisting them in support of the department's mission to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence for all Americans."

And why do we need federal tax dollars to "empower" the educational efforts of religious groups? And where is the Democratic skepticism of mixing church and state?

In a second (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12120105) article, the Post is more specific as to what Groff's department does: "Under the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Education's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives doled out grants to churches and other faith programs for after-school activities, weekend computer labs and family literacy programs."

It is immoral, a violation of individual rights and of church-state separation, to force people to finance "churches and other faith programs" against their judgment. It was immoral when Bush did it, and remains immoral as Obama follows in Bush's footsteps.

Comment by smilesback: Ari, I am a Christian, and I don't like the mixing of church and state at all either! However, I also don't like my tax dollars going to anything I disapprove of --like abortion. But truly we can't pick our government --even is we wish we could and even if we are supposed to be able to. I do believe, though, that Jesus taught separation of church and state, because until HE reigns, no person who comes to power can refrain from getting corrupted and oppressing his fellow man. Jesus said in Matt. 22:21, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's." Rachel

What Social Security Means To You

April 26, 2009

The Social Security Administration helpfully sent my wife a statement explaining "What Social Security Means To You." Because, you know, we cannot possible figure that out for ourselves; we need the federal government to tell us.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner whose signature appears on the letter, is a liar.

He claims that the statement "can help you plan for your financial future." Not so. Instead, it merely reminds us that we cannot plan for our own financial future to the degree that federal politicians force us to pay payroll taxes.

Astrue claims that "Social Security is a compact between generations." Not so. A (http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=compact&search=search) "compact" is "a formal agreement between two or more parties, states, etc.; contract." But a contract implies mutual consent. We never consented to paying the Social Security tax. Indeed, we have asked repeatedly not to have to pay the tax, in exchange for not receiving any benefits. Forcing children, including our unborn children, into this socialist Ponzi scheme is not a "compact." It is generational theft.

Astrue does helpfully point out, "In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." This is a half-truth. The full truth is that this alleged "Trust Fund" is merely a claim on general government revenues, dependent on tax receipts.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, claims to know what Social Security means to us. Not that he cares what Social Security actually means to us, but I'm going to explain it anyway.

My wife's statement summarizes that she alone has paid $51,474 in Social Security taxes (employer plus employee side), plus $12,022 in Medicare taxes. So my wife has paid a total of $63,496 in payroll taxes, so far. (And she's only 31. She gave me permission to post these numbers.) So what does Social Security mean to us? The payroll taxes mean:

* That we are just now climbing out of debt, when we could have built a positive net worth many years ago.

* That we just bought a house last year, when we could have afforded a house years ago.

* That we have put off having children. This alleged "compact between generations" has prevented us from even meeting the next generation of our family.

* That we have considerably less money saved up for emergencies, health expenses, and retirement.

* That we have scrimped and cut budgetary corners when we could have spent more on food and entertainment. While we would have put only a small fraction of the funds toward entertainment, a little goes a long way. We could have gone out to eat more, seen more movies in the theater, taken more vacations, and purchased higher-quality groceries.

Social Security is horribly unjust, particularly harmful to the working poor, and a gross violation of individual rights. What, then, is the solution?

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/12/socseclinks.html) argued, it would be wrong (and politically infeasible) to cut benefits for current recipients. However, the further someone is away from retirement, the better the person is able to adjust to changes in the system. Thus, the best and easiest reform is to phase out Social Security, by increasing the pay-out age by a few months every year until, after a period of decades, nobody is collecting benefits and the tax is completely eliminated.

But I don't think that will be the reform that Congress pursues. Instead, what seems to be on the agenda is for the Federal Reserve to inflate the money supply, such that all the promised dollars for Social Security are paid out, but those dollars are worth much less, even as the federal government is taxing larger monetary incomes to cover the tab. Neat trick, inflation. Because we must preserve the "compact between generations" by ensuring a devalued economy for our youth.

Comment by Patrick Sperry: Way back when, those oh so many years ago, I was in High School. We did a small project in a class. At that point in time based upon expected nominal incomes. Myself and my classmates would have to had lived to be something like one hundred and eighteen years old to recap what we would have put into "social security." Now, to be sure, medicare was still lumped in with it in those days, but?
We also developed figures that showed that if even half of the same amount of money was placed into a pass book savings account we would have almost three times the money to use for retirement and related expenses.
I can only wonder what the results of the same sort of cursory study in personal economics would show today...

Comment by Ari: I do want to emphasize that I DO NOT favor forcing people to put their money into a "private" (actually politically controlled) account. People should be free to do with their money whatever they deem best. My phase-out plan has nothing to do with "replacing" Social Security with mandatory accounts. That said, yes, people would generally be much better off if they were free to keep their money, rather than forced to funnel it into Social Security.

Automated Prayer

April 27, 2009

I'm not sure whether (http://informationageprayer.com/) this is supposed to be a joke (http://fortruth.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/this-is-hilarious/) (via For Truth).

The idea is that, for only $3.95 per month, you can set up a "subscription service utilizing a computer with text-to-speech capability to incant your prayers each day. It gives you the satisfaction of knowing that your prayers will always be said even if you wake up late, or forget."

You can choose Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or generic prayers.

Some people have an astounding propensity for strangeness.

After Tea, Try Liberty

April 27, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090427/COLUMNISTS/904269995/1062/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published on April 27, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

After tea, try long, cool drink of liberty

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

On April 15 thousands of Coloradans gathered in cities across the state to protest big-spending politicians and advocate liberty. They joined hundreds of thousands across the nation. But a tea party is not in itself a liberty movement. We must dig beneath the political crises of the day and nourish the roots of freedom.

We are encouraged by much of what we heard April 15. Here in Grand Junction, Ryan Frazier said, "We, and more importantly our children, are being saddled with endless debt upon which we will all have to pay... We choose capitalism over socialism... We believe you cannot make one man more free by making another man less free." He advocated people's "liberty to live [their lives] as they see best, and a government that protects their right to do so."

Your junior author Ari attended the rally in Denver and recorded a number of interviews. Peter Perry advocated "lower taxes, less government, and more freedom... Let's get back to the original Constitution."

Thomas James: "I hope the elected officials who this is aimed at develop an awareness that the people are not happy... with the taxing, spending, government growth, irresponsibility, and that people are waking up and they want their liberty back."

Anthony Gillis: "We need to take a stand for liberty, and for our livelihoods... The spending is simply out of control."

Ed Carter: "I'm here with my son to try to take this government back for the people... We need to get back to what our forefathers intended this country to be all about."

Carol: "I have eight grandchildren... [They're] going to have to [bear] the brunt of paying this off... and I'm mad as hell about it, too. Our kids shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's misappropriation of funds."

Terry: "I'm tired of seeing the Constitution stepped on... Government is out of control."

Bob Tender: "The government is spending too much money. Congress doesn't even read its own bills, comes up with 'stimulus' that has hidden pork in it, taking away our future, taking away our kids' future, taking away our grandchildrens' future."

Mel, an Air Force veteran of Vietnam: "I feel this taxation, and also the overspending of the budget is definitely wrong. It's a free enterprise country. If you can't run your company, you should resign or default, and not have the government pulling you out."

The tea parties were deeply inspiring for those of us who cherish economic liberty and see that robbing Peter to pay Paul cannot restore prosperity. But we need more than anger at the current (or the last) administration. We need more than criticism of Congress. We need more than signs, rallies, and speeches.

We need ideas. We need the ideas that informed the signers of the Declaration of Independence, that each person has the moral right to his or her own life.

Our favorite Tea Party speech was given by John Lewis, a history professor, at Charlotte, North Carolina. You can view the speech on (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqoOHWhNR1Q) YouTube or read the (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5505) transcript online.

Lewis said, "The Founders of this nation brought forth a radical idea... This idea was the Rights of Man...

"These inalienable rights are The Right to Life—the right to live your own life, to choose your own goals, and to preserve your own independent existence.

"The Right to Liberty, which is the right to act to achieve your goals, without coercion by other men.

"The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, to act to achieve your own success, your own prosperity, and your own happiness, for your own sake.

"And the Right to Property -—the right to gain, keep, and enjoy, the material products of your efforts."

Lewis summarized, "Each of us is an individual, autonomous, moral being, with the right to choose his own values and capable of directing his own life."

Over the last century, Lewis explained, government has turned away from protecting our rights to seizing the wealth of some to hand to others. To the degree that government follows that path, it must control the lives of the citizens.

The trend of government controlling our wealth has led to a "vision of man as a whining dependent, who begs for the needs of life from an all-powerful governing aristocracy. This ruling elite claims the moral right to distribute the wealth of those who earn it to those who wish for it," Lewis said.

Lewis asked the audience, and he asks you: "Look at yourselves again. Do you see in your face, and in the face of the person next to you, the slave of a group, with no moral status, no rights and no liberties, who is bound from birth to serve? Or do you see an autonomous being with the right to live for his own sake?"

On April 15 we stood among a vast crowd. But we stood with individuals.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Ari, your last line is the poignant. This is what made this protest different from any I have seen for a very long time. And it is also why the Progressives don't understand the whole Tea Party phenomenon. And you are also right in that now there is much work to be done to educate ourselves and our friends who went to the tea parties. We need ideas more desperately than action if we intend to take our liberty back.

Around Colorado: April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

Hsieh on Health-Bureaucracy Push

Thomas Ferraro and Donna Smith of Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE53N6LC20090424?feedType=nl&feedName=ushealth1100) reported April 24, "Congressional Democrats are near a deal to ram through legislation overhauling the U.S. healthcare system," imposing so-called "universal" (read: politically controlled) health insurance.

Paul Hsieh of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/04/slowing-push-towards-fast-tracking.html) writes, "Americans have already been burnt by the Congressional rush to pass the 'stimulus' bill—which many legislators now acknowledge that they didn't even read before voting for it. Congress should not make the same mistake by rushing to pass 'universal health care' legislation."

Read the excellent letters by Hannah Krening and Diana Hsieh, which Paul reproduces.

Twenty Years for Burglary, Illegal Auto

Congratulations to the AP for getting (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12244838) this point right: "Unregistered fully automatic weapons, sometimes called machine guns, are illegal."

Unfortunately, various important questions remain unanswered. Jason Muchow, "a Loveland mail carrier faces charges of stealing his ex-girlfriend's mail and owning a fully automatic weapon... Authorities say they found a fully automatic AK-47 in Muchow's home after he was accused of breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home and killing her cat... He faces up to 20 years in prison and $500,000 in fines if convicted of all the federal charges."

Surely killing your ex's cat, however horrible and despicable, is not a federal crime. The only reason stealing mail is a federal crime is that the U.S. Government holds a politically-enforced monopoly on first-class mail. Both these things are properly state-level, not federal-level, crimes. If he is proved guilty, he surely deserves significant punishment for stealing, breaking into a house, and killing somebody's cat.

Does Muchow admit that he illegally purchased a full-auto rifle or illegally converted a semiautomatic rifle to full-auto? Or does he claim that his rifle became "fully automatic" only after it was "tested" by federal agents?

My position is that the federal registration requirements for full-autos, imposed through tax laws, should be repealed. That said, if you knowingly buy or convert an unregistered full-auto, you're an idiot. More importantly, Muchow should be punished for victimizing another person, if proved guilty, and that is the point that I think all parties can agree on.

Buck Hate Crimes

I was pleased when the murderer of transgendered Angie Zapata was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. The murderer deserved (at least) that.

But is the crime somehow more heinous because it was obviously motivated by bigotry? I mean, he bashed in an innocent person's skull with a fire extinguisher. Isn't that bare fact enough to send somebody to prison for life?

More to the point, if a criminal bashes in somebody's skull for some other motive, is the crime somehow less abhorrent? Is the victim less deserving of tough sentencing?

"Ikonoclst" over at the People's Press Collective (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/04/ken-buck-pathetically-perpetrating-pc-pandering/) blasts Ken Buck, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, for praising hate-crime legislation.

However, Republican arguments against hate-crime legislation would go over better if (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/02/renfroe-should-resign-over-bigoted.html) some Republicans were not so shrilly anti-homosexual.

Arveschoug-Bird Safe for Now?

Last month I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/arveschoug-bird.html) reviewed some of the details of the Arveschoug-Bird law, which limits general fund expenditures.

(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12241544) According to the Denver Post's Tim Hoover, the Republicans played a clever political hand to derail the effort to remove the law.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker told Hoover, "It is extremely disingenuous for the Democrats to remove this spending cap under the guise of creating transportation funding. We proved today just how easy it is to siphon those so-called transportation dollars right out of the bill and put them wherever you want."

Musgrave's Anti-Abortion Hit Squad

April 29, 2009

Despite the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) fact that, at least in the Interior West, the Republican crusade against abortion has cost the party its political dominance, some Republicans are hell-bent on continuing that push.

As "Bob's Blog" from the Coloradoan points out:

[Former Congress Member] Musgrave was defeated soundly in 2008 by Democrat Betsy Markey. She was hired earlier this year by the Susan B. Anthony List, which focuses on supporting anti-abortion women running for office, to head a new project called "Votes Have Consequences." The new program plans to target a small number of incumbent House members in 2010 who are believed to be "out of step" with their districts on issues important to the pro-life movement.

In other words, the goal of the group is to oust social moderates in favor of hard religious-right candidates, who can then presumably follow in Musgrave's footsteps and lose in the general.

Musgrave recently wrote an (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/441nbgfi.asp?pg=1) article for the Weekly Standard with Marjorie Dannenfelser. Notably, while the two continue to call their position "pro-life," at no point do they confront the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) arguments that their anti-abortion position is in fact anti-life. Nor do they make any effort to defend the view that a fertilized egg is a person with the full rights of a newborn.

I will not rebut every claim made in the article, but I will address two points.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser write:

When it came to choosing the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, an obscure but important officer in charge of defining each administration's official stance with regard to the Constitution and federal law, the president nominated not simply a supporter of Roe but former NARAL counsel Dawn Johnsen. She believes that pregnancy is the moral equivalent of slavery, and that therefore the anti-slavery 13th Amendment to the Constitution protects abortion on demand. Johnsen made this argument in her best-known legal brief, to the Supreme Court in Webster v. Reproductive Services.

This claim by Musgrave and Dannenfelser is simply false. Johnsen did not equate pregnancy with slavery.

Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/04/obama-judicial-nominee-faces-republican-opposition-supporting-abortion-rights/) offers the relevant context:

In a brief filed when she was a lawyer with the National Abortion Rights Action League, Johnsen cited a footnote that said forcing women to bear children was "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest."

And Johnsen is correct. Forcing a woman—and the key term here is "forcing"—to bring a fertilized egg to term is "disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude."

It is unfortunate that Musgrave and Dannenfelser choose to distort Johnsen's views rather than present some sort of argument against them.

Musgrave and Dannenfelser are very concerned with allowing medical personnel to choose whether to perform or recommend abortions. (The writers are "pro-choice" when it suits them.) They think "pro-life leaders in Congress" should make sure that any political takeover of medicine ensures this medical right to choose.

But what should trump here is property rights and the right of contract. Hospitals and other medical facilities have the right to set their own terms, and doctors who work their can choose to uphold those terms or find employment elsewhere. A private Catholic hospital has every right to post on its front door: "We do not recommend or perform abortions." Then potential customers know the hospital's policies and can choose their health care accordingly.

Notice that what Musgrave and Dannenfelser do NOT endorse is liberty in medicine. The problem is that, to the degree politicians take over health care, politicians set the terms of health care. That is one of the reasons why politicians should not take over health care.

But the religious right does not truly care about establishing free markets (though a few religious conservatives endorse free markets or at least pay them lip service). This is not a surprise, because the entire purpose of the religious right is to use the force of politics to advance their faith-based agenda.

Classic Rand Interview

April 30, 2009

Playboy has published a 1964 interview with Ayn Rand (http://www.playboy.com/articles/ayn-rand-playboy-interview/index.html) online.

In two brief answers, Rand summarizes the essence of her philosophical beliefs:

PLAYBOY: What are the basic premises of Objectivism? Where does it begin?

RAND: It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man's only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged your hero, John Galt, declares, "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." How is this related to your basic principles?

RAND: Galt's statement is a dramatized summation of the Objectivist ethics. Any system of ethics is based on and derived, implicitly or explicitly, from a metaphysics. The ethic derived from the metaphysical base of Objectivism holds that, since reason is man's basic tool of survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to perceive reality and to act accordingly, is man's moral imperative. The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics is: man's life—man's survival qua man—or that which the nature of a rational being requires for his proper survival. The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. It is this last that Galt's statement summarizes.

The onslaught of bad news these days can seem overwhelming. We have political takeovers or attempted takeovers of major industries from banking to auto manufacturing to health care. Added to the dismal political news are natural problems like swine flu and earthquakes. It is, however, an opportune time to get back to fundamentals. Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, has been flying of the shelf because, I think, more people than ever are concerned with the direction the world is headed—and they're looking for a rational alternative.

Read the Playboy interview—and don't stop there.

Comment by AnCap12: Why not justify John Galt's exclamation more simply, without all the objectivist mumbo-jumbo. How about this: Galt's statement is true because he OWNS HIMSELF. No one else has claim on John because he is the owner, and ultimate decision maker for himself simply because he holds priority over his own body—no matter the wishes of anyone else.

Comment by Ari: "Mumbo-jumbo" is hardly a fair summary. The reason is that self-ownership is not a philosophical axiom. You have to establish it, which requires a lot of philosophical work. Trying to skip that work yields only unjustified dogma.

Denver Tea Party on YouTube

May 1, 2009

(http://stopspendingourfuture.org/) Stop Spending Our Future is collecting (http://www.youtube.com/group/stopspending) videos of tea parties across the nation. Following is my submission:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N3k_yeeAhw

Censoring Scott McInnis

May 3, 2009

I imagine the last thought on Scott McInnis's mind about (http://completecolorado.com/) Complete Colorado is "you complete me."

McInnis, who appears headed into the Colorado governor's race of 2010, appeared in scandalous-sounding headlines before even announcing his candidacy—something every candidate no doubt wishes to avoid—thanks to an April 30 exclusive story by Complete Colorado bearing the ominous title, (http://completecolorado.com/mcinnis.html) "Voicemail Raises Ethics Questions for McInnis and His Probable Campaign for Governor."

McInnis left a voice mail with a potential supporter in which McInnis mentioned, "We've got Sean Tonner on board... Sean's doin' our... 527." Complete Colorado summarizes, "The mention of Tonner being on the team and also running a 527 could be problematic. It is illegal for a candidate committee to coordinate with a 527 'issues' committee."

Now that McInnis said the verboten word "527," it is no doubt time for a full inquiry. All we need now is a smoking gun or a stained dress.

What this story actually illustrates is that the campaign finance "reform" laws are in fact censorship laws. Candidates cannot simply present their message to the public coordinating with willing donors and spokespersons: they can speak only within the confines of elaborate and arbitrary rules that only armies of lawyers can hope to decipher.

A regular person cannot run for office without consulting an attorney. If you want to run for political office, you must learn the politically-correct and lawyer-approved code language for announcing your candidacy and discussing supporters. If you violate these Speech Codes, you can land in deep trouble.

The campaign censorship laws help assure that only political insiders can navigate the election laws. Most normal people are frightened away from running for office or even becoming involved in political causes. The campaign censorship laws facilitate retaliatory lawsuits and campaigns of character assassination.

Meanwhile the campaign censorship laws obviously have not cleaned up politics or gotten "big money" out of politics. The laws have merely thrown the advantage to those with enough lawyers to game the legal system.

I find it astonishing that the recipient of the voice mail—presumably a Republican—sent the voice mail to a conservative/libertarian site in order to damage a Republican candidate. (Josh Penry is also headed into the race on the Republican side.)

A May 1 (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12267399) story by the Denver Post's Jessica Fender offers useful context. Here is how McInnis defended the voice message:

McInnis, who verified that he left the message, pointed out that he has not officially announced his candidacy or formed a candidate committee, so the rules do not yet apply.

And what he really meant to say was that Tonner, president of consulting firm Phase Line Strategies, is a supporter and is answering questions about potential future 527s, he said.

"I should have said Sean Tonner is the one I'm looking to for answers on this," McInnis said. "The law doesn't prohibit you from discussions on 'This is what's going to be needed.' "

So apparently candidates can discuss "potential future 527s" without coordinating with them. McInnis's interpretation of the inherently ambiguous Speech Codes is as legitimate as any other.

These are in fact censorship laws, as Fender's following passage illustrates:

McInnis may not have technically broken campaign laws, said Colorado Common Cause Director Jenny Flanagan, but there is one simple rule when it comes to 527s: Don't talk to them.

"It's certainly a violation of the spirit," Flanagan said.

When the law prevents you from talking to others, that is censorship. Such laws violate the Bill of Rights and our fundamental human rights. They are an abomination that must be repealed.

That said, I am surprised that McInnis, a former member of Congress, did not script his message more carefully given his knowledge of the campaign censorship laws.

Complete Colorado did the right thing in running the story. It is important to know how the censorship laws are carried out in order to argue against them.

The fact that Complete Colorado has a political leaning does create a certain awkwardness surrounding the story, as illustrated by a headline above a story from the Daily Sentinel's Gary Harmon, (http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/05/01/050209_3a_McInnis_tape.html) "McInnis' voice mail posted at site run by supporters of possible rival." Harmon notes that Complete Colorado "is owned by Todd Shepherd and Justin Longo," both of whom work for the Independence Institute. Harmon writes, "CompleteColorado.com has nothing to do with the Golden-based Independence Institute, where he is employed to research government misdeeds, Shepherd said." Still, awkward.

However, Harmon's claim that Shepherd and Longo "are supporting McInnis' likely intraparty rival, Josh Penry" is completely unjustified, as Shepherd demonstrates in a (http://www.completecolorado.com/GJSresponse.html) follow-up article. Shepherd points out that Harmon's claim is based exclusively on the fact that both Shepherd and Longo "are listed on a Facebook page, 'Draft Josh Penry for Colorado Governor.'"

But that Facebook association proves nothing. People often join internet lists, Facebook pages, etc. to gain information. Shepherd points out that he is also Facebook "friends" with Democratic Governor Bill Ritter. Moreover, the Daily Sentinel itself is friends with Penry (and I wonder whether this was merely the result of investigating the story).

So we have (fake) scandal and (fake) counter-scandal.

Unfortunately, few are talking about the real scandal: political activists in Colorado suffer under censorship laws and Orwellian Speech Codes. Perhaps journalists should spend a bit of time looking into that.

Comment by Todd Shepherd: Ari: Excellent post. Your broader points that the McInnis tape shows that campaign finance rules have become to byzantine and are, in many cases, unconstitutional, are right on. I'm sure your post will be for some a starting point for the debate about how to undo the Gordian knot of campaign finance laws. Regards,

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Of course, the established parties know all about how to "work with" 527s without "coordinating" with them. The Democractic party benefited greatly from "illegal" soft money through George Soros' shadow party, after many organizations that he funded worked very hard to get McCain-Feingold in place.
We can guess as to his purpose by the results in the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. McCain-Feingold answered a problem that most voters were not even concerned about, and it was invented and passed for the exact reason you mentioned. To keep "outsiders" from messing with the taxpayer gravy train provided to the insiders. It must be repealed!

Comment by Anonymous: "That said, I am surprised that McInnis, a former member of Congress, did not script his message more carefully given his knowledge of the campaign censorship laws." Surprised? Why would you be surprised? McInnis is of the old republican guard. The rules don't really apply to them....just ask them!

Around Colorado: May 4, 2009

May 4, 2009

Arvada's Economic Non-Development

Now this is investigative reporting: Face the State published an article titled, (http://facethestate.com/articles/15836-fts-investigation-arvada-redevelopment-project-sits-mostly-vacant-costing-taxpayers-n) "Arvada Redevelopment Project Sits Mostly Vacant, Costing Taxpayers Nearly $800,000."

The article begins:

After the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority condemned and forcibly acquired an elderly small business owner's property in 2004, the land was transferred to a private developer who was given the property free of charge. Now city leaders and other project supporters are lauding the project with awards, despite the fact that the new development sits mostly vacant. The total tab to taxpayers thus far is estimated at nearly $800,000 and counting.

Governments, including city governments, simply should not be in the business of "economic redevelopment." Such central economic planning invariably employs political force through eminent domain, zoning, or taxation. Politicians can't ably plan the economy. Leave that to free individuals working together voluntarily with their own resources. What city officials can and should do is get out of the way of economic progress.

Fake Free Speech

In a predictably wishy-washy (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12286259) editorial, the Denver Post worries about the FCC's ability to fine stations for "fleeting expletives," but adds, "We believe that protecting children from adult programming and swear words is important..."

Parents who wish to protect their children from naughty words are perfectly free to do so. They can choose whether to purchase a television or radio and whether to leave it turned on to any particular station.

The FCC, properly called the Federal Censorship Commission, should be completely disbanded.

'Job Creation Bills'

The Associated Press (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12288805) claims that Governor "Bill Ritter is preparing to sign two of the top job-creation and business-development bills this session." A centerpiece of the legislation is granting "businesses that create at least 20 jobs" tax breaks.

But if giving businesses tax breaks creates jobs, then doesn't taxing all other businesses destroy jobs, damage the economy, lower wages, and increases prices on consumer goods? Of course it does. But, somehow, when Ritter signs a (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12275842) $17.9 billion state budget, he doesn't describe that as the "economy-crushing bill."

Also, why is it great to generate twenty jobs but not, say, nineteen? Isn't it better if two companies each create fifteen jobs than if one company creates twenty? Yet the discriminatory taxes will punish the two smaller businesses and give the larger business a break. Because, under Colorado tax law, some tax payers are more equal than others.

Clear the Bench

Matt Arnold has set up a new organization called (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/) Clear the Bench Colorado, an effort to urge voters to decline to retain the four State Supreme Court justices up for vote next year.

In an April 29 (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/05/01/lincoln-club-luncheon-ctbc-director-speech-29-april-2009/) speech, Arnold explained why this is an important opportunity to vote against the taxpayer-hating Supreme Court.

Change In Blog Direction

May 5, 2009

I'm dramatically changing the direction of this blog. No longer will it be devoted to matters of religion (or "reason versus faith," as my banner has put it), but to my personal interests. I will continue to blog about religious matters less frequently elsewhere (to be announced). I'll update the banner this evening.

I started the AriArmstrong.com blog back in October of 2007. At that point, I had in mind to write about pretty much everything, from politics to religion to personal interests. Then, early (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2008/01/major-changes-to-ariarmstrongcom-and.html) last year, I declared the blog "will be dedicated to issues of religion and culture." Why the change now?

First, I want to have someplace to write about movies, music, recipes, health, and other personal interests. I've been putting some material like that at (http://www.freecolorado.com/) FreeColorado.com, but it doesn't really fit there. (That page is devoted to Colorado politics.) I realize that my readership here will be small, but I'm okay with that (though I hope that an occasional blog earns broader interest). It makes the most sense to me to use the domain with my own name to cover my personal interests. This page will be free wheeling and, I hope, fun.

Second, I've grown tired of writing about religious issues as they appear in the daily headlines. The patterns have emerged. I've written about each major theme many times. I plan to spend considerable time delving into the fundamentals of religion—the results of which will become available some months in the future—but I want to spend less time with the pop aspects of religion. These are the major themes I've covered over the past months:

a) Islamist external terror and internal barbarism.
b) The Christian push to ban all abortion.
c) The Christian antipathy toward homosexuals.
d) The separation of church and state.
e) Claims that America is a "Christian nation."
f) Christian support for political controls of social and economic matters.
g) Claims of miracles and supernatural intervention.
h) Creationism.
i) Religious oddities.

Of that list, I most want to keep up with the separation of church and state, as I will do elsewhere. (Where such matters relate to Colorado politics, I'll probably write the material for FreeColorado.com.)

If you want to learn where I'll continue to write about religion, please check back here later today or tomorrow, when I hope to have everything sorted out.

With the change in mind, my next post will be about long-term wine consumption.

Wine and Life Span

May 5, 2009

In case you missed it, I'm (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/05/change-in-blog-direction.html) changing the direction of this blog to cover personal interests, including health. (Check back for an announcement regarding where I'll write about religious matters.)

Forbes.com published the article, (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/30/hscout626591.html) "Drink a Little Wine, Live a Little Longer." Unfortunately, while I plan to continue drinking red wine and other alcoholic beverages in moderation, I am unpersuaded by the study in question that drinking red wine causes longer life spans.

The article summarizes the findings:

Men who regularly drank up to a half a glass of wine each day boosted their life expectancy by five years...

All long-term light alcohol drinking boosted life expectancy by about 2.5 years in comparison to abstainers.

Drinking more than 0.7 ounces a day extended life expectancy by nearly two years compared with nondrinkers.

Wine drinkers who averaged just 0.7 ounces a day had a 2.5 year-longer life expectancy at age 50 compared to those who drank beer or spirits. And their life expectancy was nearly five years longer than nondrinkers.

Drinking moderately was linked with lower death risk, and drinking wine was strongly linked with a lower risk of dying from heart disease, stroke or other causes.

I wonder where the 0.7 ounce cut-off came from. Presumably, people who drank more than that included those who drank a lot more than that; at a certain point the potential health benefits of drinking alcohol are offset by drinking too much alcohol.

The Forbes article includes the following voice of skepticism:

"Once again, it shows that people who drink [moderately] do a lot better than people who don't in terms of survival," [Dr. Arthur Klatsky, a long-time investigator on the health benefits of alcohol] said.

However, as with other research, Klatsky wondered if it's the pattern of drinking or something related to the wine drinking—such as wine drinkers being more likely to exercise or eat a healthy diet—that is the real link.

In the new Dutch study, he says, alcohol from spirits contributes the most to the total alcohol intake, more than wine or beer.

"It's a little hard to think that a little bit of wine is what is responsible for extending their life," Klatsky said.

Klatsky's concern is more potent to the degree that some people start drinking red wine expressly for its reputed health benefits; presumably, such people are more generally concerned about their health and so would live longer whether or not they drank red wine.

But I have a different concern. People who drink wine with their meals tend to have more sociable and slower meals. People who enjoy themselves more and socialize more tend to live longer. I wonder to what degree red wine is a symptom, rather than a cause, of a robust lifestyle.

To be fully convincing, a case for the health benefits of wine would have to show a physiological relationship between the phytochemicals or alcohol in red wine to a human body's functioning. I will not be surprised if such a link is definitively discovered. The study in question, though, doesn't seem to sort out the potential causes well enough, and the study's (http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/jech.2008.082198v1? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Martinette+ Streppel&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT) abstract does not alleviate that concern.

Anagram Finder

May 5, 2009

I was very impressed that J. K. Rowling could turn "I am Lord Voldemort" into "Tom Marvolo Riddle." I was also charmed by Neil Peart's (http://www.lyricsdepot.com/rush/anagram-for-mongo.html) lyrics for "Anagram for Mongo."

Now there's an anagram generator for the lazy (though it won't do names like "Marvolo"), the (http://wordsmith.org/anagram/index.html) Internet Anagram Server (or "I, Rearrangement Servant").

Diana Hsieh (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/05/name-anagrams.shtml) found a fun anagram for her name: "ha ha die sin."

But I prefer mine: "roaring smart."

Westminster Declares Mall Blighted

May 5, 2009

The Westminster Mall is nearly dead. That is obvious to anyone who's visited it in the last year or two. So, obviously, breathing new life into it is the job of central economic planners who work for the city of Westminster. We couldn't possibly leave individuals free to use their own resources to renovate the property; this is about maximizing tax revenues, after all.

Monte Whaley's fawning (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12258419) article for the Denver Post, which includes not a single word of skepticism or criticism about the city's plans, nevertheless offers some useful details.

Whaley notes that the city has formed "an urban renewal area created after the City Council declared the 32-year-old center blighted this month."

Blighted? The mall is largely empty, but blighted? Here's is the key bit of Whaley's article:

The city hired Leland Consulting Group and Matrix Design Group to assess the complex. Their findings showed substantial problems that led the city to put the blighted tag on the mall.

The problems included buildings without fire-suppression sprinklers, poor water availability to fight fires, deteriorating parking and sidewalks, unsanitary pools of standing water, poorly lit areas, unscreened trash and bad traffic circulation.

An urban renewal authority will allow the city to use tax increment financing for upgrades.

The authority will also have the option to use the power of eminent domain to seize ownership of some of the shops in the mall, McFall said.

Eminent domain? "Tax increment financing?" If the problem is that taxes are too high for businesses to succeed in Westminster, then why doesn't the city simply reduce taxes across the board? That would never do: the purpose of the city is to maximize tax revenues, after all.

Did anyone doubt, going into the study, that Leland Consulting Group and Matrix Design Group would find blight conditions? (How much were they paid to return those results?)

We all know that the city of Westminster will not possibly tolerate any exposed hazards, messy trash, or standing water [all photos from around Ketner Reservoir in Westminster open space]:

My guess is that, if every property in Westminster were evaluated by similar standards, over half would be declared blighted. But everybody knows that declaring a property "blighted" has only a superficial relationship to the condition of the property. The point is to let the city threaten people with eminent domain. (This might be a move the mall's owners would actually welcome, given the lack of business there, but I'm not sure because Whaley apparently didn't consider contacting them, and I don't have the time to do Whaley's job for him.)

Here's a thought: why doesn't the city stop trying to plan the economy and instead create simple rules and low taxes that would benefit existing businesses and attract new ones? We all know the answer: then the politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't get to doll out favors and take credit for other people's work.

Posts On Religion

May 6, 2009

For the time being, I'll split posts on religion between this blog and (where relevant) (http://www.freecolorado.com/) FreeColorado.com. (As (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/05/change-in-blog-direction.html) noted, I'm switching the focus of this blog to personal interests, including movie and music reviews, food, health, products, and Colorado living.) At some point in the future I may blog about religion elsewhere, either solo or as part of a group.

Frost/Nixon, How About You

May 6, 2009

Jennifer and I recently watched a couple of movies that we quite liked. Frost/Nixon is about a historic interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon, after Nixon had resigned. The film sets up the dramatic tension nicely. However, there's really nobody to love in the film, so it is more of interest for its history (so check out the clips from the real interview in the special features).

In How About You, a young woman (played by Hayley Attwell) goes to work at her sister's struggling retirement home. The strongest part of the movie is the friendship that Attwell's character forms with a terminally ill resident, played by Joan O'Hara.

Unfortunately, much of the movie involves the young lady and four other residents who, at first, make her life difficult. There are some nice moments as these other friendships develop, but these other four aren't especially sympathetic. But O'Hara's limited time on screen, as well as the other solid performances, make the movie worth viewing.

On TV (via Hulu), it was great to see Alan Tudyk team up again with Joss Whedon on (http://www.hulu.com/dollhouse) Dollhouse. I don't want to say more about what he's up to on the show. This show is very well written, but, as I've mentioned to several friends, there's no central hero to root for, so it's intriguing but not nearly as compelling as Firefly (Whedon's previous show). The performances, though, are top-notch.

Gay Marriage Advances

May 6, 2009

Rarely do I favor the fence with my seat, but I have wavered between gay marriage and domestic partnership. I think all romantic couples should be treated equally under the law, but I haven't been persuaded that domestic partnership fails this test.

But ultimately gay marriage may trump. As the Associated Press (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12307574) reports, Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage, and New Hampshire may become the sixth.

How can Colorado balk if a gay couple, married in another state, moves here? Will our legal system say, "You're not really married here?" Article IV of the Constitution states, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Moreover, does Colorado want to tell successful gay couples that they're not welcome here? While Christian conservatives may decline to answer or may forthrightly say they're happy to push gay couples away, for the rest of us, gay couples shop the same as everyone else, rent or buy houses, perform useful jobs, and generally enhance the economy and culture. It'll be interesting to see how all this works out over the coming years.

Free Speech and Ward Churchill

May 6, 2009

What about free speech for the rest of us?

by Ari Armstrong

Ward Churchill (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12276451) wants his job back. To quickly review, before Ward Churchill became a professor, he (http://cbs4denver.com/local/ward.churchill.thomas.2.541927.html) copied and sold another artist's work under his own name. Then he got a tenured job at the University of Colorado, Boulder, without appropriate credentials, on the pretext that he is American Indian. He is not.

After Churchill wrote an essay comparing some victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Nazis, the University of Colorado discovered that Churchill had also fabricated claims and plagiarized in his academic work. CU fired him in 2007.

On April 2, a jury found that CU had wrongly gone after Churchill for his essay on 9/11. An (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12068800) article in the Denver Post claimed that CU failed "to protect Ward Churchill's free speech." David Lane, Churchill's persuasive lawyer, called CU's Board of Regents "civil rights violators" and declared the verdict a victory for the First Amendment, the Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12068800) reported.

But who will defend free speech for the rest of us? Where is Lane's outrage over the violations of free speech of those Colorado taxpayers forced, against their will, to subsidize Churchill's fraud?

The First Amendment protects us from government censorship. If you write an essay, and the government beats down your door and arrests you for it, or seizes and destroys copies of the essay, or otherwise forcibly prevents you from speaking, that's censorship.

The First Amendment is not a job protection act. It does not say that employers must allow their employees to say whatever they wish on the job. For instance, newspapers hire and fire writers based on the contents of their work. Many newspapers also restrict the off-duty speech of their writers. An employee of the Denver Post caught plagiarizing would be sent packing—even if that writer wrote controversial material and wore cool sunglasses with long hair.

Tenure is a contract, and Churchill was protected by that, though tenure does not protect academic fraud. Where does the idea come from that this was a First Amendment case?

The only plausible argument linking Churchill's employment to the First Amendment is that various politicians, including former Governor Bill Owens, called for Churchill's firing based on the 9/11 essay. And the state government helps fund CU. That tax funding is both a carrot and a stick, carrying the implicit threat that state funding is subject to politics.

CU (http://www.colorado.edu/pba/budget/quickfacts/infocardfy09.pdf) reports that, for 2008-09, the state funded 8.5 percent of CU's budget. Student tuition and fees, on the other hand, funded 41.3 percent. Over a fraction of its funding, then, CU accepts political oversight.

If we want real academic freedom, in which university policy is completely separated from politics, the solution is obvious. Stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize CU. Make all contributions voluntary. Then the governor and other politicians could rant and rave all they wanted; they could not control university policy.

The right of free speech entails the right not to speak and the right not to finance ideas you find repugnant. You have the right to purchase copies of the Denver Post, but the Post may not force you to buy copies. You have the right to use your own resources and those voluntarily given to you to speak. You have no right to forcibly seize the resources of others to speak.

When politicians take your money by force to fund ideas with which you disagree, they violate your rights of free speech.

But the Colorado taxpayer will never get a day in court.

Out-Of-Wedlock Births Approach 40 Percent

May 7, 2009

(http://townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2009/05/07/our_foundation_is_crumbling?page=1) Ken Blackwell alerted me to the latest updates on out-of-wedlock births. The upshot is that the figure approaches 40 percent. And that is a serious problem.

Emile Yoffe of Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2185944) points out that, from 1960 to today, the percent of births to unwed mothers has risen from 5 to 40.

Of course, the mere numbers do not tell the whole story. Some responsible older women choose to have children by themselves. I know several Colorado couples who are "common law" married but who may not show up in the marriage statistics. Some couples, while not technically married, are fully committed to their relationship. (While Yoffe notes that many unmarried couples with children split up, the fact remains that many married couples do the same thing, though at a somewhat lower rate.)

Gay couples typically are legally forbidden from getting married, though they may raise a child in a deeply committed romantic relationship. While many women used to suffer in horrible "shotgun" marriages with abusive spouses, today they are more likely to go it alone—and they're better off for it. More women (as CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/04/08/out.of.wedlock.births/) points out) have a child before getting married, rather than rush a marriage due to pregnancy.

Nevertheless, the dramatic rise in out-of-wedlock births points to deep cultural problems, even if not all out-of-wedlock births are a cause for alarm.

Out-of-wedlock births are largely a phenomenon of lower-class America, where decades of welfare have encouraged promiscuity and dependence on federal handouts. Yoffe points out, "Only 4 percent of college graduates have children out of wedlock."

The National Vital Statistics Report for (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf) Births: Final Data for 2006 (January 7, 2009) offers the updates. Here's the relevant passage:

The birth rate for unmarried women increased 7 percent between 2005 and 2006, reaching 50.6 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15—44 years. The rate has jumped 16 percent since 2002, the most recent low. The number of nonmarital births in 2006, 1,641,946, was almost 8 percent higher than in 2005 and 20 percent more than in 2002. The proportion of all births to unmarried women reached 38.5 percent of all U.S. births in 2006, up from 36.9 percent in 2005. All of these measures were at record levels for the United States in 2006.

Turn to Table 18 of the report (page 54) for some truly frightening numbers. The "percent of births to unmarried women" for "all ages" breaks down as follows:

All Races: 38.5
White: 33.3
Black: 70.2
Hispanic: 49.9

The welfare state and the social pathologies it engenders are devastating much of black America. And any political leader who refuses to look squarely at the problem is a traitor to the black community.

Bill 1984 Advances

May 7, 2009

Colorado Senate Bill 241, which I've taken to calling (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/bill-1984.html) "Bill 1984" because of its Orwellian implications, allows police to collect people's DNA based merely on arrest. The basic argument against the bill is that it creates a perverse incentive for police to arrest people on some pretext just to look at their DNA.

Nor does an amendment change the basic nature of the bill. The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12312816) reports that the bill "is on the way to Gov. Bill Ritter's desk after [it] was amended to allow police to take DNA tests upon arrest but for the sample not to be processed unless a person is charged. The sample will be destroyed if no charges are filed." All this does is extend the perverse incentive to charging somebody on some pretext, knowing full well the charges will be dismissed, just to look at the person's DNA.

Mike Krause and Joe Carr also (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1730) loot at some of the funding injustices surrounding the bill.

Republican Scott Tipton said, "We did a good thing today. We helped protect that population out there called our daughters and our wives."

Well, Scott, I talked to my wife about this, and she wants no part of your fascistic police state.

Comment by Patrick Sperry: So much for innocent until proved guilty.
I could understand a court ordering a DNA test in selected cases. Say, in a homicide where the only real evidence left at the scene were blood splatters that didn't belong to the victim. Even that however, is forcing someone to testify against themselves, and all the arguments against that by various lawyers isn't anything but lipstick on a pig.

Comment by cologeek: Honestly, I don't see any difference between collecting DNA and collecting fingerprints upon arrest. Both fingerprints and DNA have lead to arrests and convictions, and both are unique to each individual. As far as I know, no one has successfully argued that being fingerprinted violates self-incrimination. My only problem with collecting and testing DNA would be the expense, and that alone would preclude the police just picking up someone without a good reason.

Comment by Ari: Perhaps "cologeek" would care to respond to the argument that I made against DNA sampling upon arrest. If our only concern is arrests and convictions, why don't we simply repeal that pesky Fourth Amendment?

Comment by cologeek: Why do you think that anyone would want to arrest you "just" to look at your DNA? If a person is already a suspect in a crime, and are being booked, then the DNA sample will be collected along with their fingerprints and photograph. All of which can be used to get a conviction. If none of these match the criminal who committed the crime, then the police can continue to look for the true perpetrator. This is only giving law enforcement another tool to do their jobs, nothing more. I have yet to see law enforcement conducting random sweeps of citizens just to get their fingerprints. I can't see it happening for DNA either.

Comment by Ari: I have not formulated a clear position on fingerprints. However (for starters), there is a clear difference between a fingerprint—which you leave behind everywhere you go and which can be collected quickly and non-invasively—and a DNA sample, which can only be collected invasively. (Obviously we shed DNA fragments all the time, but a usable sample requires an invasive procedure.) You're ignoring the very real investigative differences between fingerprints and DNA. If the police have collected the DNA from the probable perpetrator, either from blood, sperm, or skin beneath the victim's nails, the police can either do their job and look for evidence pointing to the perpetrator, or they can start guessing and arresting people "on spec." Again, if our only concern is finding the perpetrator, we might as well simply repeal the Fourth Amendment and start entering DNA into the police databases from birth. If that's what you want, then just admit as much. Do you seriously doubt that, at some point, the police will urge the legislature to let them keep the DNA records on file permanently? You're also ignoring a couple other details. A fingerprint at a crime scene is often obscured or, more often, not present. DNA is present only sometimes, but when it is present, it's typically binary: there's either a sample or their isn't. Also, unlike fingerprints, DNA can be used to match family members. So if the police suspect Brother A of committing the crime, but they can't find Brother A, they may arrest Brother B (or some other relative) on some pretext to check out Brother A. Your simplistic argument that DNA sampling is okay because police currently fingerprint arrested suspects simply doesn't fly.

Two Doses of Nonsense Do Not Make for Reason

May 8, 2009

David Limbaugh's (http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/05/08/memo_to_capitalists_be_very_afraid) comment today illustrates perfectly what's wrong with today's left-right divide:

Lately, MSNBC's Chris Matthews has been on a childish tear, taunting Republicans to admit their belief in the biblical account of the Creation. Someone ought to ask this paragon of smug self-satisfaction why, if he's so brilliant, he unquestioningly echoes the demagogic hyperbole of global warming fanatics hellbent on destroying the economic system responsible for producing unprecedented prosperity in the advanced industrialized world. Oh, yes, it's fashionable to denounce capitalism these days, but the historical record is clear.

So because Matthews is a nutty leftist, that somehow legitimizes the nutty right? What we need is reason and capitalism.

ReCaptcha: Stop Spam, Digitize Books

May 8, 2009

Some readers may have noticed that I've changed my method of listing my e-mail address on my web pages. I now use (http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/) ReCaptcha.

ReCaptcha hides a portion of the e-mail, and to access the entire e-mail, you must type in two words. This helps stop spammers, obviously.

But—and this is the really clever part—it also helps to digitize books. So we're getting some extra value for our time spent blocking spam.

ReCaptcha is a service of Carnegie Mellon University. (http://recaptcha.net/learnmore.html) Here's the relevant description:

About 200 million CAPTCHAs are solved by humans around the world every day. In each case, roughly ten seconds of human time are being spent. Individually, that's not a lot of time, but in aggregate these little puzzles consume more than 150,000 hours of work each day. What if we could make positive use of this human effort? reCAPTCHA does exactly that by channeling the effort spent solving CAPTCHAs online into "reading" books.

To archive human knowledge and to make information more accessible to the world, multiple projects are currently digitizing physical books that were written before the computer age. The book pages are being photographically scanned, and then transformed into text using "Optical Character Recognition" (OCR). The transformation into text is useful because scanning a book produces images, which are difficult to store on small devices, expensive to download, and cannot be searched. The problem is that OCR is not perfect.

reCAPTCHA improves the process of digitizing books by sending words that cannot be read by computers to the Web in the form of CAPTCHAs for humans to decipher.

This is very clever. Two problems, one elegant solution. Nicely done.

Values of Harry Potter Update

May 8, 2009

Kirk Barbera's (http://cedrac-standup.blogspot.com/2009/04/values-of-harry-potter-lessons-for.html) review of my book (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter was republished on his Cedrac blog.

Barbera writes that Values of Harry Potter shows "the morality of the Potter series does not promote sacrificing life on earth, but instead supports the notion of living life fully."

He concludes, "Most importantly the [Harry Potter] books can teach us how to attain the values best suited to each and every one of our lives. Ari Armstrong shows us that, through Harry, we can learn life isn't just what is; but what can and ought to be."

Note that Amazon is behind in its ordering, but the book should become available there again within a few days. Or (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) order Values of Harry Potter directly with free shipping on all U.S. orders (outside Colorado).

Peter Marcus's Lap-Dog Journalism

May 8, 2009

While Peter Marcus of the Denver Daily News (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-dailys-smear-job.html) smeared the Tea Party last month, he has been nothing but a fawning advocate of new tax-and-spend legislation. Marcus seems to see his job as journalist to amplify Governor Bill Ritter's views and agenda. His "news" stories are little more than fawning editorials.

Today's headline offers some indication of the paper's political leanings: (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=4172) "Guv lists goals reached: Ritter happy lawmakers targeted jobs, education, transportation, more." Marcus's "news" story consists entirely of praise for Ritter. Out of the entire population of Colorado or of Denver, apparently, Marcus could not find a single critical voice.

Marcus, for example, praises Ritter's signing of Senate Bill 67, which "commits $2.5 million in public funds to leverage more than $50 million in private bank loans."

But wait just a minute. Do private banks refuse to grant loans unless they are subsidized by tax dollars? As a rule, no. They make money by judicially giving out loans; that's their business. So it's simply wrong to think that the $50 million depends on the $2.5 million. It is true that today credit is crunched—and that is because the federal government promoted risky loans. The solution is to get government out of the loan businesses.

As we're "helping" politically-connected businesses with the $2.5 million in tax funds, whom are we hurting? We're hurting everyone who no longer has access to that $2.5 million. Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not improve the economy. Moreover, forcibly transferring wealth from some people to others is morally wrong and a violation of individual rights.

But Marcus is not about offering a balanced news story. He is about pushing a political agenda in the news pages.

As to whether the legislature's overall policies in fact serve to benefit the economy, my dad and I will have more to say about that on Monday.

John Lewis on Constitutions, Athens and Now

May 10, 2009

John Lewis gave a talk today in Arvada called "Greek Lessons for Today's Crisis of Government." Here he briefly summarizes his talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6brM_dInEk

John Lewis Reflects on Tea Parties

May 10, 2009

While John Lewis was in town to discuss the Athenian constitution, he also shared a few thoughts about the Tea Parties. Listen also to Dr. Lewis's outstanding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqoOHWhNR1Q) Tea Party speech from April 15.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaQ4WeAiUXM

Trekking Boldly

May 10, 2009

The new Star Trek movie overall is fantastic. If you're a Start Trek fan, go see it. If you like sci-fi, action, good acting, good production, or J. J. Abrams, go see it.

I think there's a reason why Wolverine and Star Trek each earned a huge box office: people still want to live with heroes. Sometimes in our world it's easy to forget that there are heroes out there, that we too can act heroically. People are hungry for that. Thankfully, Star Trek delivers.

Here's the basic minimally-spoily story: a Romulan (Nero, portrayed by Eric Bana) nurses an irrational rage against the elder Spock, who pursues Nero into the past. Nero arrives at a time just before James T. Kirk is born and sticks around long enough to tangle with Kirk as a young man.

I don't like everything about Trek. Indeed, while I enjoyed the movie immensely while watching it, afterward I sulked about the plot inconsistencies and contrivances. Then I decided that, despite the film's weaknesses, it is a heroic story finely made.

That said, I remain frustrated with the film for similar reasons that I've become frustrated with other projects from Abrams. I really enjoyed Alias, but less so after the plot became nearly incomprehensibly complex, and not at all when the Giant Magical Energy Ball appeared. I never have finished watching the series. (While Abrams did not write Trek, he worked with writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman on Alias and other projects.) I loved Lost right until the characters had to repeatedly punch a code into some bizarre machine for some unknown reason. The stories are just too convoluted to be enjoyable.

Likewise, while I enjoyed the action of the Transformers film (which didn't involve Abrams but which Orci and Kurzman wrote), I found the basic story exceedingly tedious and stupid.

Trek is a lot better, but, notably, Spock the Elder has to voice-over substantial background to make the story remotely comprehensible.

From here on out this review includes spoilers!

Star Trek, like Alias, features a Giant Magical Sci-Fi Energy Globule. This is a device, a stand-in for real writing. It's almost as bad as the Giant Magical Energy Ribbon from Generations. It's the sort of nonsense takes the "sci" out of sci-fi.

Here's another example of the occasional idiocy of Star Trek. At one point, Spock the Younger kicks Kirk off the ship; Kirk ends up on a nearby planet, in a random place though somewhat near a Federation outpost. After being chased by not one but two Man-Eating Snow Monsters (because, you know, all ice planets are filled with Man-Eating Snow Monsters), Kirk falls down an embankment and runs into a cave. Low and behold! It is precisely the cave where Spock the Elder has taken up residence after he was sent to the planet by Nero! What amazing luck. But wait, there's more! Kirk meets not only Spock the Elder but Scotty, who just so happens to have been assigned to the ice-planet outpost! It's so coincidental you wouldn't believe it if it were fiction.

Once Leonard Nimoy signed on as Spock the Elder, time travel was a plot necessity (given the undesirability of mere flashbacks). As a rule I hate time travel in stories just because it makes everything so messy and disconnected. I suppose it is poetic, then, that the three greatest Trek films—The Voyage Home, First Contact, and the new one—feature time travel as a crucial element of plot.

The writers use time travel to make the new Trek not just an "origins" film, but a complete reboot. Because Nero appears just before Kirk's birth, he literally changes the entire timeline from that point on. The Star Trek universe is literally different from the historical universe of the rest of the franchise. (I believe that Next Generations went off into a parallel universe for a while.)

What's interesting about the film—and I actually like this—is that the writers don't "fix" the timeline in the end. This has devastating consequences for an entire world. This adds an element of realism to the movie. The heroes win, but they can't blow on it and make everything better in the end. The bad guy extracts a horrible price, the way bad guys so often do in the real world. While the heroes do not always have to lose something precious to drive a compelling story, in this case it's integral to the story, though it took me considerable time to overcome the anxiety about disrupting the history of the rest of the franchise. (I finally had to ask myself, "Would I like this movie if I knew nothing else about Star Trek?")

After it all, then, I can forgive the eyebrow-raising plot holes, because the story's amazing heroism rings true.

Comment by Nomad: it seems to me that the new Capt. Kirk encapsulates all that Capt. Kirk was meant to be more than William Shatner's version

Cookware

May 11, 2009

Jennifer and I bought a teflon pan a year or two ago at Target. It worked well, but recently I noticed that it had started to show chipping and scratching (even though we use only silicone spatulas). That teflon is wearing off somewhere, either in the wash or in the cooking, and I'm not sure I want to be eating it. Plus, everybody we've talked with says teflon wears out eventually with any pan, and we didn't want to keep buying new pans every year or two.

So we bought a stainless steel All-Clad fourteen inch deep-dish pan. It was pricy, but it performed well for an onion-beef-tomato dish I made. Unfortunately, it did not perform well as a griddle.

So we first bought an All-Clad double burner cast-iron griddle. But I didn't like it for two reasons. It didn't fit our stove's burners well, and my egg immediately ran into the "grease" gutter. So we returned it. I bought two Calphalon 10.5 inch cast-iron griddles at Target, and they work spectacularly. I made the best pancakes of my life in them. (Plus, the two round griddles cost less than the single double-burner one.)

So we now have cookware that works well and that should last the rest of our lives and beyond.

Apple Service

May 11, 2009

I love Apple. I love my iMac computer, yes, but I also love Apple as a company. (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/new-new-mac.html) previously I wrote about our new computer. I have since processed an HD video file two hours in length; the computer worked fine (though it takes time to process files that big). The source file in iMovie is about 100 gigabytes.

Recently I needed some information about iMovie versus Final Cut Express, the mid-grade software. A guy named Eliot at the Flatirons store spent a few minutes answering my questions about the software. (I learned that iMovie is a lot more powerful than I had imagined.) As we also briefly discussed, when you buy an Apple product, you're not just buying the stuff, you're buying the service, which is worth a lot.

Just decades ago, the technology I have sitting on my desktop was not available at any price. Just years ago, it cost several times the value of my house. The technology revolution has allowed the economy to move forward despite all the federal interventionist shenanigans. Just imagine where we might go in a free economy.

Legislature Passes Job-Killing Bills

May 11, 2009

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090511/COLUMNISTS/905109989/1062/NONE&parentprofile=1062) was published in the May 11, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Legislature passes job-killing bills

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The Colorado legislature is pro-business in roughly the same way that throwing a dog a bone after beating him mercilessly is pro-dog.

That didn't stop three journalists—(http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/05/04/daily1.html) Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal, (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=4135) Peter Marcus of the Denver Daily News, and (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/04/ap6375833.html) Steven Paulson of the Associated Press—from regurgitating political propaganda last week about "job creation" bills and calling it news.

So now we'll give you the full story. (We figure if you're going to get lame editorials on the news pages elsewhere, you might as well get some real news on the editorial pages here.)

The main "jobs" measure in question is House Bill 1001, fawned over by politicians, bureaucrats, and various journalists alike. While the measure features Democrats as lead sponsors, various Republicans also signed on, including Steve King and Josh Penry.

Bill 1001 adds several new pages of tortured legalese to the Colorado statutes (section 39-22-531, because we know you'll want to look it up later) allowing the Colorado Economic Development Commission, at its discretion, to offer a "job growth incentive tax credit," as calculated in accordance with the bill.

And what is the Colorado Economic Development Commission? Its (http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/OEDIT/OEDIT/1165009699743) web page notes, "It consists of nine members five of whom are appointed by the Governor, two by the President of the Senate and two by the Speaker of the House."

Those of you who thought we lived in a free-market economy were sorely mistaken. Now we have a bureaucratic commission to help set the rules of business and determine the winners and losers. Business is no longer about offering goods and services on a level playing field where the laws apply the same to everybody. Now business is about sucking up to the Commissars for special political favors.

Bill 1001 is about taxing businesses with existing jobs more in order to reduce the tax burden on businesses with "new" jobs. And we're supposed to swallow the notion that these discriminatory taxes are fair.

The hidden premise behind Bill 1001 is that taxes kill jobs, a premise with which we agree. Yet, instead of reducing taxes across the board so that everyone can benefit equally, the legislature wants to reward politically-correct and politically-connected businesses at the expense of everybody else.

And Bill 1001 is the good news of the legislative session. Remember, even the Democrat-controlled legislature implicitly grants that taxes kill jobs. Therefore, the legislature has done everything it can to increase taxes during the current recession. (Note that the governor had not acted on some of these bills as of our deadline.)

During this recession, many taxpayers are taking a hit, either in reduced work, reduced wages, or less business. Yet, rather than take an equal hit, Governor Bill Ritter just signed a (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12275842) $17.9 billion state budget, or about $3,500 for (http://dola.colorado.gov/demog/population/forecasts/substate1yr.pdf) every man, woman, and child. While the total budget is less than the $18.6 billion for 2008-09, it exceeds the $17.2 billion for 2007-08 (as relayed by the (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/FY08-09apprept.pdf) Joint Budget Committee).

To keep state spending high, the legislature has looked for new ways to make people pay. Two of the worst bills of the session raise fees on cars and hospital visits. During a recession the legislature must screw drivers and the sick especially hard to fund more bureaucracy.

Senate Bill 108, the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12312819) reports, would increase the "cost of vehicle registration by an average of $41 for typical vehicles." We continue to wonder where all our gasoline tax dollars are going.

House Bill 1293, laughably called the "Health Care Affordability Act of 2009," would impose "hospital provider fees... on outpatient and inpatient services provided by all licensed or certified hospitals."

You see, this fee will make your health care more "affordable" by forcing you to pay more for the health care of others. (Paging Dr. Orwell.)

In order to hide these fees from patients, the legislature helpfully included the following line: "A hospital shall not include any amount of the provider fee as a separate line item in its billing statements."

As we have discussed, the real problem is that the federal government forces hospitals to provide care without compensation. But the solution to the problem is to repeal those federal controls, not force even more wealth redistribution.

The legislature also passed bills to increase capital-gains taxes (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/05/04/daily41.html) (bill 1366), cigarette taxes (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/05/04/daily46.html) (bill 1342), and net sales taxes (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/03/02/daily21.html) (bill 212). (Though we gave the Denver Business Journal a bit of heck earlier, we gratefully acknowledge the paper's reporting on these bills.)

But doesn't the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights require voter approval for all such hikes? Silly taxpayer. You have obviously confused the plain language of TABOR with the Colorado Supreme Court's transcendent reasoning. (For details, see (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/) ClearTheBenchColorado.org.)

We haven't even gotten into the bills that increase the costs of doing business and reward people for not working.

We do have one thing to be thankful for: the legislature has disbanded till January.

Return 'Buy Black'

May 13, 2009

You've got to be kidding me. A "buy black" program—as in, buy only from African-American owned stores—is (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519965,00.html) "becoming a nationwide movement."

This should get exact same reception as a "buy white" campaign would get. Paging (http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html) Dr. King.

Comment by Monica: Ridiculous. Gotta say, growing up in my own Christian conservative household, there was a "buy Christian" movement. Almost equally absurd. Perhaps marginally better in that I suppose you are seeking to boycott financially supporting people whose ideas you don't agree. Still.

Face: Best Boulder Band

May 13, 2009

Congratulations to (http://www.facevocalband.com/) Face, an all-vocal recently named the best band in Boulder. See Vince Darcangelo's (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/may/07/face-boulder-vocal-rock-band-a-cappella/) love letter to Face in the Daily Camera.

My wife and I took my mom to see Face at (http://nissis.com/) Nissis on Monday. Good show. The group has sold out that venue something like 80 times in a row. (Note: an owner of Nissis also owns my wife's company.)

I wrote about Face (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/100605.html) twice in (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/122905.html) 2005. I understand the group likes my following line:

[S]aying that Face is an "a cappella group" is sort of like saying Jimi Hendrix is a "guitar player." It's true, but it doesn't really get the point across. Face rocks.

On Monday, I was especially impressed with Mark Megibow's new "drum" solo: he was singing through his own beats. (I joked that I'd be impressed when he can also sing harmony with himself.) He must have the best-developed mouth and throat muscles in all of Colorado.

You can listen to Face's music (http://www.facevocalband.com/gift_shop.html) on the group's webpage.

If you want to read a heart-wrenching mother's day story, see Pamela White's article for Boulder Weekly, (http://www.boulderweekly.com/20090507/coverstory.html) "2 men, 2 women and a baby." Here's the summary. Forest Kelly is another member of Face. His wife suffered from cancer, so, unable to have children herself, she had some eggs of hers frozen. Then Megibow's wife decided to carry her friends' baby to term. Happy Mother's Day.

Antitrust Punishes Success

May 13, 2009

Devlin Barrett of the Associated Press performs a useful service in (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12342417) reporting the Obama administration's plans to expand antitrust enforcement. It would have been pleasant had Barrett bothered to quote a single critic.

The antitrust laws are a fraud. The premise behind them is that on a free market companies can reach unjust or unfair or economically damaging levels of economic success. But this is simply not the case. On a free market, customers can choose whether to buy a company's product, and others can choose to enter competition.

Instead, it is political power that creates harmful monopolies—though such monopolies generally are exempt from antitrust enforcement.

Throughout the history of the laws, antitrust actions have been brought by less-successful competitors and governmental agents with an axe to grind to punish successful companies at the expense of consumers and economic health.

Companies targeted by antitrust action are characterized by skillful and efficient management and operations, economies of scale, and wildly successful products at competitive prices. Typical results of antitrust action are higher prices and less-useful products. (This is merely a summary; for details see The Abolition of Antitrust and The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust.)

As Barrett summarizes, the Obama administration claims "lax enforcement by the Bush administration contributed to the current economic troubles." But nowhere in the article is any support offered for that view. The fact is that lax antitrust enforcement had absolutely nothing to do with the modern economic crisis, which was instead caused by federal encouragement of risky loans and investments. Increased antitrust enforcement will only dampen economic recovery.

Barrett suggests that two companies at high risk of antitrust action are Intel and Google—two companies that have been enormously successful because they provide enormously valuable goods and services. The idea that these companies should be politically punished because they are successful is grotesque. (I personally benefit enormously from both companies; for instance, I am using Intel processors and Google software to publish this blog post.)

Here is Barrett's most chilling line: "[Assistant Attorney General Christine] Varney said the Obama administration would try to follow the historic lessons of The Great Depression in pursuing antitrust cases even in a troubled economy."

The historic lessons of the Great Depression are that politicians hampered economic recovery by going on witch hunts against businesses and business leaders. The fact that the Obama administration sees the Great Depression as some sort of model is truly frightening.

Here is a telling passage from Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man (page 344):

[Robert] Jackson... had collected a set of specific instructions from Roosevelt... to define and prosecute antitrust violations, and, especially, to go after individuals. Sometimes—when he knew the targets, or liked them—Roosevelt suggested that Jackson soften. And always, Roosevelt took care not to harm those with special power to harm him. Learning from Jackson of a possible action against motion picture combines, Roosevelt said, "Do you really need to sue these men?" and asked that they be brought in for a talk. But other times he egged Jackson on.

This typifies what antitrust actions are all about—arbitrary political power brought against the successful for the "crime" of success.

Comment by Jonathan Briggs: I don't believe antitrust law is as unnecessary as you claim. If customers were smart and avoided short-term thinking, antitrust wouldn't be necessary. But, people just aren't like that. If they can buy a product at a better price today, they don't worry about where the higher priced competitors will be in five years. Take the microprocessor industry and Intel vs. AMD for example. Intel has a lot more money than AMD. If Intel undersold AMD long enough to drive AMD out of business, Intel would stand unchallenged and their prices would then go up a lot.Investment in modern chip fabrication plants requires billions of dollars. A new replacement AMD would have a very hard time getting investment to compete with Intel, when investors all know Intel would simply begin the price war again. In the microprocessor business, a big enough company could keep competitors out of the market indefinitely without any government interference either for or against. It is almost the same in telecommunications. It costs so much to run fiber and wire to individual homes and cross country that without open access requirements the bigger companies with control of the infrastructure could block smaller competitors. Microsoft has been getting some of its biggest competition from open source software which can only compete because its being given away for free. MS has used their market position to undercut competition, used control of their OS APIs to break competitors application software, used control of their Office software to break competitors compatible operating systems, and other dirty deeds. Just think how much worse they'd be in the absence of any government control. Maybe, just maybe, after experiencing years of abuse from large companies, customers would begin to take care to avoid buying from potential monopolies even when the price is attractive. Many large companies do implement "two source" policies themselves when buying critical supplies. It'd be a lot more difficult for consumer groups to implement. And in a way, representative government is a consumer group.

Comment by Ari: Your claims are complete nonsense. With respect to microprocessors, you're just spinning idiotic theory out of thin air that has no theoretical or historical support. If you don't like Microsoft, then buy Apple, as I do, or some other competitor. The government's role is to prevent force and fraud and protect contracts. Microsoft does not have any proper legal requirement to make its software amendable to the products of others. Of course, as you note, if a company does not address compatibility issues to the satisfaction of customers, the company is setting itself up for long-term problems. Your entire premise is that people are just too stupid to live their lives without the "help" of federal politicians. Any self-respecting person rejects your premise, utterly.

Taken

May 14, 2009

In Taken, a film released to DVD this week starring Liam Neeson, two teenage girls go to Paris without any mature supervision or hard-headed sense. Predictably, they fall in with a smooth-talking predator. And they are taken.

Fortunately, the father of one of the girls (Neeson) worked many years for the government to prevent "bad things from happening." So he heads to Paris to find his daughter—and take care of her abductors.

The father shows single-minded, coolly passionate competence in tracking his daughter. He demonstrates that there is no necessary conflict between reason and emotional commitment: he uses his mind to direct his physical prowess in recovering his daughter, his supreme value.

I really liked this movie.

Assuming Jennifer and I have kids as planned, I plan to buy Taken and other films with good sensible messages of self-protection. It really can be a dangerous world out there if you don't pay attention to what you're doing and take sensible precautions. I navigated a few dangerous situations by sheer luck. I want to help my kids do better.

No Tax Funds for Religious Schools

May 14, 2009

David Card, "president of Escuela de Guadalupe, an independent Catholic, dual-language school in northwest Denver," made a series of astounding comments in an (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12362596) article for the Denver Post today.

Card argues that some religious schools "are effective in developing Colorado standards-based academic proficiency in subjects like math, reading and science, and in producing high school graduates." No doubt. But then Card adds, "Clearly, the state has an interest in this."

Clearly, Card has lost his faculties. The government's job is to protect people's rights, not dictate education policy for private schools. Many parents flee to private schools precisely to get away from political interference. Card would extend that interference to schools that are currently private.

Card argues that the state—i.e., politicians—should finance religious schools (presumably including his own). He pretends that politicians can force other Coloradans to finance only "non-sectarian efforts" by religious schools. The division is impossible. A religious school of necessity infuses its entire program with its ideological premises.

I left the following comments online:

"No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent."—Colorado Constitution, Article II, Section 4

Forcing a person to finance a religious institution, against his will, violates his freedom of conscience and right to property. Moreover, no conscientious religious school would willingly accept the political interference that inevitably follows political funding.

Frazier Watch: Top Line

May 14, 2009

Those interested in Ryan Frazier's campaign for U.S. Senate should note that Frazier recently appeared on (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7576941) ABC's "Top Line" (via (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/05/colorados-ryan-frazier-a-new-face-for-gop/) PPC). I like his calm demeanor on the show; it compliments his more fiery public speech at the (http://vodpod.com/watch/1544270-ryan-frazier-speaks-at-a-colorado-tea-party) April 15 Tea Party in Grand Junction.

Frazier took a brief moment to discuss his principles of fiscal responsibility and individual rights.

I can live with his answer on immigration: he said we should incentivize people to go home and then come back to work here legally.

I also like his message of "tolerance" toward gay couples, though I hasten to add that the proper attitude is not "tolerance" but open acceptance. ("Tolerance" implies putting up with something one has reason to dislike.) Tolerance here is a step forward for the GOP, however.

I'm not sure what Frazier means about expanding benefits to gay partners. If he's talking about equalizing government treatment, that's fine (though the problem is with the tax-funded benefits per se).

I think Frazier is doing what he needs to do: present himself as as a mature and reasonable guy ready to represent Colorado values of independence and liberty.

Essays on Atlas

May 15, 2009

Amazon finally shipped my copy of Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. (Get the paperback, unless you're willing to pay an exorbitant price for the hardback.) There's a lot of good material in there, and I've just started to read through it. I enjoyed Jeff Britting's chapter on adapting the novel for screen, based largely on Rand's own advice.

The best essay I've read so far is Darryl Wright's chapter on Rand's development of ethics between her two big novels. In brief, she went from seeing independence as the primary virtue to crowning rationality. The shift places reality—one's relationship with reality—at the forefront. And I hadn't directly considered the fact that independence is a virtue possible only in relation to other people; without reference to others one can be neither independent (from others) or dependent (on others). That's a big reason why rationality is primary: one must choose to think whether alone or in society.

Wright also reviews Rand's development of the idea that morality arises only within the context of the choice to live. Good stuff.

The Nobility of Capitalism

May 15, 2009

Today the Denver Post published an attack on capitalism by (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/05/14/unregulated-capitalism-is-enemy-of-democracy/#comment-149817) Daniel W. Brickley of Littleton. Following is my reply:

Capitalism: The Only Moral System

I'll untangle Brickley's many confusions. Capitalism protects people's right to live their own lives and interact voluntarily with others, by their own judgment, free from political controls. Capitalism means a system in which individuals rights to property and contract are consistently protected. In capitalism, the job of the government is to protect people from force and fraud.

To the degree that politicians interfere in the market, that is not capitalism, but its opposite. If "bribed governments" grant to some businesses political advantages to seize wealth by force or forcibly harm competitors, that is not "unregulated capitalism;" it is a market controlled to some degree by politicians.

Capitalism is regulated (made regular) first by a government that protects against force and fraud, and second by the independent judgment of individuals. If you don't like a company's products or services, don't buy them! If you think you can do better, you are free to try. But this is not the sort of "regulation" that the enemies of capitalism have in mind. Instead, they call on politicians to control the economy and violate people's rights.

Brickley is right about one thing: capitalism is incompatible with pure democracy. Capitalism protects individual rights. Pure democracy is mob rule, it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, it is 51 percent of the population enslaving the other 49 percent.

Brickley calls capitalism, the only system compatible with the reasoning mind of man, a "religion," and equates it with Soviet communism. This is pure projection. For the full justification of capitalism, see Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Capitalism is marked by men of drive and genius developing the goods and services—the health care, the technology, the food, the housing, the cars—we need to thrive. Their motive is to produce life-enhancing products and exchange them voluntarily with others for their personal gain. No motive could be more noble.

As for nastiness, we need look no further than Brickley's smear campaign against capitalism and capitalists.

Ari Armstrong
http://www.freecolorado.com/

Comment by paratracker: Ari, I wish you'd put a lot more argument behind democracy as mob rule and how to inhibit that tendency. I've suggested an 'asymmetric democracy' amendment wherein any provision that increases government spending or reduces the freedom or autonomy of individuals or groups must pass with 3/4 plurality (and conversely only 1/4 required to reduce government power/spending or expand individual liberty/autonomy). Personally, I don't think 3/4 is high enough to prevent mob rule, but 3/4 is all you need to amend the constitution, so difficult to push it higher. Note that single provision requirement prevents horse trading issues. Most government expansions are passed with a little bit of pork in it for each of the nay-sayers. I look forward to seeing more from you on this issue.

PJ on Antitrust

May 15, 2009

Recently I argued briefly against the Obama administration's threat to beef up (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/05/antitrust-punishes-success.html) antitrust persecution.

Now Pajamas Media has offered an outstanding video, (http://www.pjtv.com/) "Obama Administration Cracking Down On Monopolies." Both Terry Jones of Investor's Business Daily and Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute do a fantastic job summarizing the flaws and destruction of the antitrust laws. If you are one of those "conservatives" who advocates central political control of this economy in this area, it is past time for you to reevaluate your views.

Castle Renewed! Now Revive Serenity

May 16, 2009

I'm thrilled for Nathan Fillion (a.k.a. "Cap'n Tight Pants." Not that I noticed, or anything, but I hear tell). Castle, the hip "Murder He Wrote" for ABC, has been (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003771.html?categoryid=14&cs=1) picked up for a second season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_(TV_series)) (via Wikipedia).

Jennifer and I just finished watching the final (tenth) episode of the first (replacement) season. The last episode illustrates why I like Fillion. He's funny, yes. But he also has that hard, tense edge when he needs it. I also quite like Stana Katic, who portrays the cop with whom Fillion's Rick Castle partners to solve crimes.

I like the show because Katic's character is driven to find justice, yet the crimes often are shown to be what real crimes are: messy. Sometimes the perpetrators are a little sympathetic, and sometimes the victims weren't so nice.

Okay, so now that Fillion is a big damn movie star (though he already had a fantastic TV show and two outstanding feature films to his credit, plus some other fun work), now that Summer Glau is a freakin' terminator, now that Alan Tudyk is back working with Joss Whedon's Dollhouse, now that Whedon is obviously in his prime, it seems high time to get the crew together and finish making the Serenity movies.

I'll review a few rules here for making the last two movies a success.

1. Film them both at once to save costs.

2. Don't title them "Serenity," which sounds like retired people fishing in a pond or something. Call it "Mal's War" or something bad-ass. ("Serenity" can be in the subtitle.)

3. Run real ads, not those strange "cult following" ads that accompanied the first movie.

4. This is optional, but I like it. Whedon killed off two characters in the first film. Okay, I get it. But you can bring back these characters, say by having Tudyk appear in Zoe's dreams (say, to tell her she's pregnant), and having Book appear in a video recording addressed to Mal. Or something like that.

I sincerely believe that the next two Serenity films would make money. (Hell, I think you could re-release the first film and make more money off that.) I think there were some problems with the first film in terms of packaging and marketing that held back its sales, but that could be fixed for the next two films. Yes, scheduling conflicts and all that. But this is great art. And great art deserves commitment and funding. I believe the money will follow.

Give us Serenity parts II and III.

Motorhome Diaries Guys Arrested!

May 16, 2009

Three guys are traveling the country in a motorhome to report on the liberty movement and support it. Jennifer and I met them and had a nice chat with them a few weeks ago in Denver at (http://www.libertyontherocks.com/) Liberty On the Rocks.

I was disturbed to hear this morning that they had been arrested in Mississippi. Now that they have been released from jail, they have recounted the details on their blog, (http://motorhomediaries.com/jones-county-sheriffs-department-falsely-arrests-mhd-crew/) "Jones County Sheriff's Department Falsely Arrests MHD Crew."

This story makes me angry. These cops acted little better than common street thugs. Shame on the Jones Country Sheriff's Department.

Notably, the officers in question abused these travelers' civil rights on the pretext of the drug war.

Memo to the police: your job is to protect individual rights, not violate them. Memo to legislators: when you empower the police with rights-violating laws and arbitrary powers, we end up with a police state. The fact that most of us (or at least most of us with obvious resource and the "right" skin color) never personally suffer such abuses should not blind us to the creeping police state unfolding before us.

Comment by Fester: When they took off on there adventure, this was something I think we all sort of knew would happen at some point. They want to make a documentary after they finish the road trip, I think this incident will be the highlight.

Coconut Milk Smoothie

May 17, 2009

Wow. Want a calorie booster in your morning smoothie? Try coconut milk.

My nephew is allergic to milk, so I suggested to my sister that she put coconut milk in his smoothies. Today I tried it with great results. We blended a can of Thai Kitchen coconut milk (which Target sells for $1.44), a banana, some pineapple-orange juice, and some yogurt (which I assume my sister would hold). We ended up with four cups of rich, creamy smoothie that tastes fantastic. The coconut flavor is mild and yummy.

The can of coconut milk contains 70 grams of fat, 50 of which are saturated. So this definitely follows the "fat is your friend" line of dietary views. (I know that some people especially like coconut fat in terms of healthy eating, but I don't know the science behind such claims.) You could definitely use less coconut per serving if you wanted to reduce the calorie and fat load.

I do think it's true that eating fat makes you feel full; I've mostly finished my two cups of smoothie and I feel absolutely stuffed, even though earlier I was thinking of making eggs.

Read also about (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/coconut-fat-yum.html) chicken mole using coconut milk.

No Property, No Freedom

May 18, 2009

I continue to enjoy Catherine Drinker Bowen's Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May to September 1787. Following are just a couple of intriguing passages:

Stephen Hopkins, arguing from Rhode Island against the proposed stamp tax in the year 1764, had announced that "they who have no property can have no freedom." The famed Massachusetts Circular Letter of 1768 had declared it "an essential, unalterable Right, in nature... ever held sacred and irrevocable... that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own." (page 71)

[Reflecting on George Washington's sentiments:] These meetings would determine whether America was to have a government which guaranteed life, liberty and property, or whether the country was to drift into anarchy, confusion and the dictation of "some aspiring demagogue." (page 77)

How far we have fallen.

Or, in the half-full interpretation, how great is our opportunity to renew our founding ideals!

Comment by C. August: I'm reading it now as well, and agree that it's very enjoyable. One correction to your quote is that it wasn't Stephen Hawkins, but Stephen Hopkins.

Trimming Songs

May 19, 2009

Memo to rock bands: don't put annoying filler in your songs. Thankfully, now I can simply cut such nonsense out with my audio editing software (mostly Amadeus, though I have to use other stuff to get around irritating "protection" encoding. I hasten to note that I buy all my music and alter the encoding only of songs I have purchased for my personal use).

I almost didn't buy the new Depeche Mode album because of the bizarre and off-putting (and long) introduction to the first song, which is otherwise great. With a judicious snip, the song is now a minute, twenty-three seconds shorter—and much better.

I love U2's "Wanderer," sung by Johnny Cash—except that they recorded these horrible clanging noises at the end. Now I can enjoy the song without rushing to fast-forward through the completely unnecessary noise.

I also got a song from Ghostland Observatory that includes this grating buzzing sequence about three-fourths of the way through. Now the song is about a fourth shorter—and I can listen to it.

Listen, rock bands: none of you is so great that you can just put annoying noise in your songs and expect us to listen. Knock it off. You're not being avant garde, you're not being edgy, you're not being clever. You're being annoying. And there are too many good bands in the world for listeners to put up with your annoying crap. That goes for you, too, U2. At least now I can fight back and do your editing work for you.

There is a broader point here: with the digitization of music, listeners can now adjust their play lists, not just to include the songs they want, but to include the sections of songs they want. In general, the digital revolution puts consumers in charge of their media in remarkable new ways.

Origins Of Life?

May 19, 2009

While no doubt the matter will continue to be debated, British scientists seem to have made some progress regarding the origins of life. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520170,00.html) Via Fox, the Agence France-Presse (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090513/sc_afp/sciencebiologylife_20090513210508) reports on "a paper published in the British journal Nature by University of Manchester chemists:"

The team, led by Professor John Sutherland, venture that an RNA-like synthesis took place through a series of chemical reactions and an important intermediate substance.

Their lab model uses starting materials and environmental conditions that are believed to have been around in early Earth and are also used in the standard "RNA first" scenario.

Their theory starts with a simple sugar called glycolaldehyde, which reacts with cyanmide (a compound of cyanide and ammonia) and phosphate to produce an intermediate compound called 2-aminooxazole.

Gentle warming from the Sun and cooling at night help purify the 2-aminooxazole, turning it into a plentiful precursor which contributes the sugar and base portions of the new ribonucleotide molecule.

The presence of phosphate and ultraviolet light from the Sun complete the synthesis.

God's Gap may have just shrunk a bit more. Of course, even if scientists succeed in creating new life in a laboratory setting, even that will not prevent (the relatively sophisticated) creationists from imagining the hand of God at work in the origins and evolution of life.

Armentano Versus Antitrust

May 19, 2009

Dominick Armentano has penned an op-ed against antitrust for the Christian Science Monitor, (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0518/p09s02-coop.html) "The problem with Obama's antitrust plan."

He summarizes:

The free market does not need more strict antitrust policy; it needs simple protection from fraud. The problem is that, in the 119 years that antitrust laws have existed, there is little empirical evidence that "vigorous enforcement" of them can promote the interests of consumers... Indeed, antitrust history is riddled with silly theories and absurd cases that themselves have restricted and restrained free-market competition and hampered an efficient allocation of resources.

Read Armentano's brief history of antitrust laws—particularly if you are one of those "conservatives" who thinks central economic planners should play a role here.

A competitive market means a free market, which means a world in which the unjust antitrust laws have been repealed.

Sennheiser Microphones

May 21, 2009

In the case of remote microphones, it is true that you get what you pay for. I purchased a lower-end Audio Technica mic that worked, but it offered steady background static, frequent bursts of interference, and practically no controls. I returned it.

Then I purchased a much more expensive G2 series mic system from Sennheiser (from (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/) B&H, by the way), and my preliminary tests came back with crystal clear sound. The only problem I've had is that, out of the box, it's a little hot for my camcorder. But I can adjust the volume, the frequency, and various other settings fairly easily. I haven't quite decided on the optimal settings for my equipment, but I've come close.

I'm a bargain shopper. Sometimes, though, the best bargains cost the most money.

Unemployment Whiners

May 21, 2009

UPI (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/18/No-benefits-for-laid-off-religious-workers/UPI-95691242688977/) reports:

Some people recently laid-off from religious institutions in Virginia said they were shocked [just shocked!] to find the state does not offer them unemployment benefits.

Carol Bronson, who was laid off from her secretarial job at Temple Emanuel synagogue in Virginia Beach, said she was told her unemployment claim was denied because the tax exemptions for religious organizations under Virginia law include an exemption from paying unemployment taxes, The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot reported Monday.

Steven G. Vegh of the Virginian-Pilot (http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/laidoff-religious-workers-denied-jobless-benefits?t=1242708863) adds that "under Virginia law, tax exemptions for religious organizations include freedom from paying unemployment taxes. The groups still must pay Social Security and withholding taxes."

You don't have to pay the tax, so you don't get the benefits. Sounds pretty fair to me. In fact, it sounds like such a good idea that I think it should be expanded. All businesses should be able to decide whether to pay the unemployment tax. If I could decide not to pay the Social Security tax in exchange for not getting any Social Security benefits, I'd sign up in a second.

California Tax Revolt

May 21, 2009

And here I had simply written off California as unsalvageable. Perhaps there is some hope for the Left Coast—the People's Republic of California—the state synonymous in Colorado politics with dysfunction—after all. The Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-webelection21-2009may21,0,7361966.story) laments:

The day after voters overwhelmingly rejected a plank of ballot measures intended to ease the state's financial woes, lawmakers awoke to a harsh reality: a projected $21.3-billion deficit and the prospect of another round of bitter negotiations...

"There's a certain point where you feel that it will be devastating to some people and so we tried not to make those cuts," said the governor, who last week outlined grim plans to cope with the deficit. "But now we have to, we have no other choice."

Come on, Ahnold, where's the Terminator when we need him? At least the Governator is looking to slash bureaucratic jobs and cut spending. But he wants to borrow $6 billion from "Washington"—i.e., from tax payers from Colorado and the rest of the nation?

Hasta la vista, baby.

Barter Versus Taxes

May 21, 2009

Kevin Simpson wrote up an article for the Denver Post, (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12416306) "Barter system booms in Colo." Simpson talked to a few people who have been trading goods and services directly, but I'm surprised that he didn't mention the tax ramifications.

I Googled "'tax income' barter," and the top hit is the following information from the (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html) Internal Revenue Service:

Topic 420—Bartering Income

Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. The fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide must be included in income in the year received.

Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X. Refer to Topic 308 for Amended Return information.

A barter exchange or barter club is any person or organization with members or clients that contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis.

The Internet has provided a medium for new growth in the bartering exchange industry. This growth prompts the following reminder: Barter exchanges are required to file Form 1099-B for all transactions unless certain exceptions are met. Refer to Barter Exchanges for additional information on this subject. If you are in a business or trade, you may be able to deduct certain costs you incurred to perform the work that was bartered. If you exchanged property or services through a barter exchange, you should receive a Form 1099-B (PDF), Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions. The IRS also will receive the same information.

Please refer to our Bartering page [see the original document for related links] for more information on bartering income and bartering exchanges.

And how many people bartering in Colorado are filling out the legally required forms and paying the legally required taxes? My guess is the percent is less than two.

In today's world, you can hardly do anything without being required to fill out a bunch of government forms and pay some bureaucrat or other protection money. There's nothing so simple, straightforward, or beneficial that bureaucrats can't turn it into a legal nightmare. The IRS's documentation reads like it comes out of the world of (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/) Brazil.

The IRS imagines that barterers are going to refer to Topic 308 so that they can fill out Form 1040X. Good luck with that.

"I hereby inform you under powers entrusted to me under Section 476 that Mr. Buttle, Archibald, residing at 412 North Tower, Shangri La Towers, has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries and that he is liable to certain financial obligations as specified in Council Order RB-stroke-C-Z-stroke-nine-O-seven-stroke-X."

Comment by Anthony: If barter income wasn't taxable, people would have formed enormous barter economies, thereby escaping taxation, long ago. Like so much of the tax code, barter income rules are in place to close loopholes. Incidentally, barter income is also taxable under the "Fair Tax", which really goes to show you that the "Fair Tax" is not much more than an income tax in sales tax's clothing (the only substantive difference is the timing of the taxation of savings—under the "Fair Tax" saved earnings aren't taxed until you spend them, kind of like giving everyone unlimited IRA accounts). You can't eliminate barter income rules without eliminating income taxes and sales taxes, which, incidentally, would be perfectly fine with me, and I'm sure with you as well, Ari.

Comment by Dave Barnes: The whole point of bartering is to avoid pay taxes.
Otherwise, you would use money as it is way more convenient.

Comment by Brian Schwartz: I strongly suspect that more people have moral objections to taxing "barter income" than they do taxing "money income." If this is true, perhaps it would be useful to start there (that taxing barter transactions is objectionable) and then show that the difference between barter and paying someone with money (an indirect means of exchange) is irrelevant to how objectionable the income tax is.

Comment by Anthony: I don't know how useful that is, Brian, unless your goal is to replace the income tax with property taxes, and/or inheritance taxes, and/or Pigovian taxes. I'm not even sure most people's objection to the taxation of "barter income" is a moral one, rather than a practical one. Considering the concept of taxing barter income does show the practical problem with the income tax, but I don't think it shows the moral problem. The moral argument for taxation usually comes down to externalities, especially positive externalities (the argument being that those who benefit from a government service have a moral duty to pay for it). I found George Reisman's arguments against the externalities doctrine to be especially persuasive, but then he was preaching to the choir. I had already accepted the moral principle of eliminating taxation—Reisman merely answered one of my final remaining objections to it.

Comment by Ari: I see that "Favorpals is a proud sponsor of President Obama's Renew America Together Initiative." I take it, then, that everybody who uses Favorpals takes extra care notify the Obama administration of their tax burdens involving barter.

Public Health Plan Deception

May 27, 2009

Via (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) Brian Schwartz: this short video demonstrates that, not only would Obama's health scheme lead to "single-payer" (i.e., politically-controlled) health care, but it is intended to to so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E

Of course, these consequences, intended or not, do not automatically disqualify Obama's plan. To read why politically-controlled medicine is wrong and bad for our health, see (http://www.westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Reusable Bags Pose Health Risks

May 27, 2009

Recently I went in to the Whole Foods store at 92nd and Sheridan in Westminster. Upon checkout, the clerk informed me that the store no longer offered normal plastic bags. I had to take paper instead or buy one of the "reusable" bags. The clerk indicated that the policy was "for the environment," to which I responded something like, "Don't give me your pseudo-scientific environmentalist BS."

I have not been into a Whole Foods since. I proudly ask for plastic bags every time I go into Whole Foods's competitor, (http://www.sfmarkets.com/) Sunflower. It turns out that when I go shopping at a grocery store, I'm there to buy food, not listen to some fact-challenged religious sermon.

As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/01/fines-for-plastic-bags.html) reviewed in January, the Colorado legislature considered fining the use of plastic grocery bags. For the environment. Even though plastic bag crack-downs actually (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/01/could_proposed_colorado_law_to.php) harm the environment (not that that's a primary reason to oppose the measure). Thankfully, the effort failed.

But it turns out that continually bagging up meats and unwashed vegetables in a "reusable," "environmentally friendly" bag makes it, like, all gross and stuff.

(http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/reusable-grocery-bags-really-are-green/) Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Center points to an article from the National Post titled, (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theappetizer/archive/2009/05/20/back-to-plastic-reusable-grocery-bags-may-pose-public-health-risk.aspx) Back to plastic? Reusable grocery bags may cause food poisoning. The article reviews:

A microbiological study—a first in North America—of the popular, eco-friendly bags has uncovered some unsettling facts. Swab-testing by two independent laboratories found unacceptably high levels of bacterial, yeast, mold and coliform counts in the reusable bags.

"The main risk is food poisoning," Dr. Richard Summerbell, research director at Toronto-based Sporometrics and former chief of medical mycology for the Ontario Ministry of Health, stated in a news release. Dr. Summerbell evaluated the study results.

"But other significant risks include skin infections such as bacterial boils, allergic reactions, triggering of asthma attacks, and ear infections," he stated.

The study found that 64% of the reusable bags tested were contaminated with some level of bacteria and close to 30% had elevated bacterial counts higher than what's considered safe for drinking water.

Further, 40% of the bags had yeast or mold, and some of the bags had an unacceptable presence of coliforms, faecal intestinal bacteria, when there should have been 0.

The solution? Wash the bag. But as Lockitch writes, "What about all the water and energy consumed by the washing machine, not to mention all the evil detergents and chemicals that get washed down the drain?! No, laundering the bags will still have an environmental impact—it will still leave a 'footprint.'"

Give me the plastic. And if you want to hassle me about it I can always double-bag it.

Comment by Colorado: Not only do government economists fail to look at the invisible or unintended consequences of their actions but so do the environmental groups. What ever happened to critical thinking and logic?

Credit Controls Punish Responsible

May 28, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.coloradodaily.com/news/2009/may/24/udalls-credit-controls-punish-the-responsible/) published on May 24, 2009, by Colorado Daily.

Udall's credit controls punish the responsible

by Ari Armstrong

Didn't Sen. Mark Udall's mama ever teach him to read contracts before signing them?

If he had learned that lesson, he wouldn't impose new federal controls on credit cards—controls that would punish the responsible and the poor in order to reward irresponsible whiners.

Nobody is forcing you to get a credit card. If you don't like the terms that a credit card offers, you are perfectly free to reject them.

Michael Riley (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12407295) writes in the Denver Post that Udall "hatched the idea in 2005 after watching a staff member's experience with a credit-card company that boosted his interest rate to 21 percent even though he had never missed a payment."

If you sign up for a credit card that tells you it will raise your rate whenever it wants, then why are you complaining when the company does exactly what it said it was going to do to you?

If you don't like the deal, then pay off the card and cancel it.

What if you're not able to pay off your card or transfer your balance elsewhere? If you can't handle your balance, then don't charge it in the first place.

The new controls will have two main effects. They will ensure that the young and the poor have less access to credit. And they will make it harder for responsible cardholders to negotiate good terms.

An Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/fast-facts-credit-card-overhaul/) article summarizes the key provisions of the Senate bill. It would force credit card companies to lower rates even for people who miss payments, increasing rates for the rest of us.

It would require a "45 days notice before rates are increased," making it harder for credit cards to lower rates for others. It "requires anyone under 21 to prove that they can repay the money before being given a card," making it harder for young adults to build their credit.

Additional Federal Reserve controls would limit "excessive fees" charged to "people with bad credit," limiting their ability to rebuild credit.

For a few years, my wife and I got in over our heads and faced high balances and interest charges. We made a budget, controlled our spending and steadily paid off our debts. The more debt we paid off, the better the credit terms we could negotiate.

Today credit card companies pay us to use their cards. Our American Express card charges an insanely high interest rate on balances—which is why we never carry a balance on that card. The card also pays cash back for purchases and offers free monthly interest when we pay in full.

We carry about $6,000 on a Chase MasterCard at guaranteed 0 percent interest forever (provided we make all our payments). Counting inflation, the credit card company effectively pays us to keep the balance.

Of course, if you bury high-interest charges beneath a no-interest balance, it's not such a good deal—which is why we don't do that.

We worked hard to earn good credit terms, and now Udall wants to punish us to buy the votes of the whiner demographic.

Udall's scheme flows from one fundamental premise: You're just too stupid to live your own life without the "help" of federal politicians.

Unfortunately, those who push for political control over their lives would drag the rest of us down with them.

Ari Armstrong, a guest writer for the Independence Institute, is the author of (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) "Values of Harry Potter" and the publisher of FreeColorado.com.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: Hear, Hear! I never had a credit card until I was in the position to pay the balance every month. We pay $25/year for the convenience of using plastic. We never pay interest because we still adhere to a budget and pay our balance in full every month. We get airline miles, so, like you--I think we are coming out ahead on the deal. There's an easy solution to the "credit card" problem. Don't own one unless you can read and do math and have the discipline to stick to a budget.

WWII: 'Invasion Forces Headed for Japan'

May 29, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090525/OPINION/905249995/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published May 25, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

'Invasion forces headed for Japan'

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Theo Eversol, a long-time peach farmer from Palisade and grandfather to your younger author Ari, died in 2001. He used to say that he worked the three most dangerous jobs around: farming, mining, and soldiering. Theo served in the Pacific Rim of World War II, a war that within a generation nobody will personally remember. We remember it in the stories and legacies of those who served.

Theo's army career posed the greatest danger. One night Theo decided not to attend a movie. The building was hit by "daisy cutter" bombs, after which Theo searched the field for body parts.

Theo recorded his opinion about the use of atomic bombs to end WWII. After Theo's wife Ila died last year, Ari discovered a paper bag filled with copies of Yank Down Under and Yank Far East, Army publications for soldiers. On a page with a map of the Philippine Islands, Theo wrote, "Yank invasion forces headed for Japan in Sept. 1945. Thank God the bomb was dropped!"

Today President Obama wants "a world without nuclear weapons." We worry that the price for such a world would be America's military strength.

Theo actually heard a military leader rally the troops for a pending attack on Japan. We believe this took place on the northern most island of the Philippines; Theo wrote on the map, "Aug. 1945: We were at Luzon."

If the U.S. military had invaded Japan, chances are good that one or both of Ari's grandfathers would have been killed in battle. Instead, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9. Theo served on an occupation force, not an invasion force.

Theo used to tell his grandchildren, "War is barbaric," an absolute horror. Yet, he added, if the other guy starts it, sometimes you've got to finish it.

Notably, after the United States decisively won the war, the occupation forces turned to the task of restoring lawful order, not fighting terrorists as troops are doing now in the Middle East. Indeed, Theo and his friends were invited to tea by the father of a boy lost in the Japanese military. Today Japan is a good ally to the United States, whereas the Middle East seethes with hatred and violence.

The copies of the Yank magazines, "by the men, for the men in the service," offer a glimpse of military life during war. A cover dated June 23, 1944 features the story, "Noncoms Tell Replacements How To Stay Alive (Page 2)."

A cover dated November 24, 1944, features a photograph of Douglas MacArthur. After President Roosevelt ordered MacArthur to leave the Philippines for Australia in 1942, MacArthur said, "I came out of Bataan [a Philippine province] and I shall return." Yank Far East reports: "He Returned: Attack Day in the Liberation of the Philippines."

Some of you may know our local Sikhs. Corporal Ralph L. Boyce reported, "About 400 [Sikhs] were captured at Singapore and were kept there until May 1943, doing forced labor." One prisoner said, "They give us only handful of rice a day... We are very weak now." Boyce wrote, "[Corporal] Anup Singh closes his notebook [that recorded their imprisonment] and stands up. 'And yesterday we [66 of the captives] were freed.' He smiles, straightens his shoulders and adds, 'By the Americans!'"

We imagine that the news and photographs from the states kept the boys a little homesick. We wonder what Theo was doing as he read this report from March 24, 1944: "A heavy snow, reaching 8 inches in Denver, brightened prospects for a good winter-wheat crop. Gov. Vivian declared that the special session of the General Assembly would be confined to legislation amending the state ballot law to permit Coloradans in the armed services to vote. Twelve of the 14 members of the La Plata County Rationing Board quit because they said policies were dictated by the state OPA office."

The Army publications included entertainment news, but even that served as a reminder of the national scope of the war. One caption reads, "Frank Sinatra... and that old master Bing Crosby decided to bury the hatched as rivals for the swoon-croon vote, at least temporarily. They agreed to go into a duet together if someone would buy a $10,000 War Bond. And the buyer came through, at the Lakeside Golf Club in Hollywood."

Strikingly, the magazines kept a high spirit. Sprinkled among the stories of bloody battles and executions are silly jokes and "Yank pin-up girls." While Gene Tierney's swim suit is modest by today's standards, we imagine her photo gave the boys some reminder of the normal life they were trying to get back to.

On the back cover of a Yank Far East, Theo summarized his tour. Ten months state side. Eight months overseas in 1943, twelve months each for 1944 and 1945, and a month in 1946. Forty-three months of service. Many of us can only imagine. And say thanks.

Goode Family

May 30, 2009

We just watched the first episode of (http://abc.go.com/) The Goode Family at ABC.com. It is about an environmentally-conscious, sensitive vegan family (think Boulder). The parents adopted a child from Africa to fight racism and accidentally got a white kid from South Africa. The dog is vegan, too—and, coincidentally, many of the neighborhood animals have gone missing.

[September 14, 2014 Update: The video in question is no longer available.]

This is biting social criticism from Mike Judge (of King of the Hill and Beavis and Butt-head fame). And, like all of Judge's work, it has something of a soft heart, despite its sometimes-painful satire.

This is not "ha, ha funny" television. It's so satirically critical of environmentalism that I'm surprised a major network picked it up. Good for ABC. I'm not sure it can last with its hard edge (especially among an American audience, which loves the dumbed down, Americanized version of The Office). Still, very interesting television.

Tales of Beedle the Bard

May 30, 2009

I've written a review of J. K. Rowling's book of fairy tales, (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/beedlereview.html) Tales of Beedle the Bard Expands Rowling's Moral Themes.

My least favorite story is "The Wizard and the Hopping Pot," because it mixes themes and develops them poorly. My favorite is "The Fountain of Fair Fortune." I find the other three tales to have interesting things to say about psychology, politics, and dealing with death.

(http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/beedlereview.html) Read the entire review.

So Long, Free Market

May 30, 2009

Now it is perfectly normal for politicians and bureaucrats to determine the fate of businesses:

(http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12482072) "An early start, deep political ties and important racing connections have given one of two competing Aurora racetrack proposals the inside track on millions of dollars in tax incentives crucial to getting either project off the ground."

Remember that a "tax incentive" for some means the same thing as screwing everybody else relatively harder. It seems likely that this particular race track may have won out without political interference, but, increasingly, we'll never know whether a business succeeded because it's a good business or because it's a politically connected one.

This business-by-tax-engineering is repulsive. (But not to its "bipartisan" supporters.)

Bob Glass Returns to Colorado Radio

May 30, 2009

Bob Glass, a founding member of the Tyranny Response Team active a few years ago, is back in Colorado preparing to jolt the radio waves.

Glass, "coming out of a self-imposed exile from Idaho," begins his "Radio Free America" show on Monday, June 1, from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. The Monday-through-Friday show will broadcast on four different stations and stream on the internet. Tune in at KRCN 1060 Longmont, KKKK 1580 Colorado Springs, KVLE 610 Vail, KSKE 1450 Buena Vista, or at (http://thebigmoneystation.com/) TheBigMoneyStation.com.

Glass, formerly publisher of The Partisan magazine, takes a decidedly pro-liberty, pro-free market stance on the issues. Often controversial (he once protested at Tom Mauser's house), Glass recently made the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/03/around-colorado-march-6-2009.html) news protesting Ward Churchill in Boulder.

Glass, who grew up in the big city, promises to lace his show "with healthy doses of New York sarcasm." He seeks to "encourage people from all sides of the political and philosophical spectrum to call in with their ideas and opinions."

Glass reflects that he once "was the owner of Paladin Arms, in Longmont, arguably the most politically incorrect gun store that ever was." He is "now back on the Front Range ready to take the good fight to the airwaves," he says. "Tune in and be a part of it."

DNA Bill: AP Ignores AP Report

June 1, 2009

On May 19, the Associated Press (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12400655) reported:

A Longmont man charged in the 1975 stabbing deaths of a Grand Junction mother and her daughter has been ordered to submit fingerprints, DNA and other identifying information as part of the police investigation into the case.

Mesa County District Judge Brian Flynn issued the order Friday for 64-year-old Jerry Nemnich. The order was made public on Monday.

Two days later, the Associated Press (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12420663) claimed, "Gov. Bill Ritter has signed a bill that would require anyone arrested for a felony to submit a DNA sample. ... Under the previous state law, only people who are convicted of crimes must submit DNA."

Apparently Associated Press writers neglect to read Associated Press news reports. It is obviously not the case that "under the previous state law, only people who are convicted of crimes must submit DNA." Under previous law, a judge could order DNA samples. You know, under the "due process" provision of the apparently superfluous Bill of Rights.

To date, nobody has seriously addressed my concern that the new law—which I called (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/05/bill-1984-advances.html) "Bill 1984" for its Orwellian implications—will encourage police and prosecutors to arrest and charge people just to get a look at their DNA.

That has not stopped Colorado Republicans from crowing about the new police-state law. On May 21, Owen Loftus issued a media release calling it a "GOP Bill," sponsored by Republicans Steve King and Scott Tipton. (Ritter is a Democrat and the former District Attorney for Denver.)

And State Senator Josh Penry, a leading potential candidate for governor, said in a separate release, "This is a big victory for the good guys. We know this bill will catch murderers, serial rapists and sexual predators who attack children. This legislation also underscores how members of both parties can come together to make Colorado safer—and violent criminals, more accountable."

But what about the accountability of the police and prosecution, Josh? What about our fundamental rights to security of person and due process? What about the presumption of innocence?

When the police need not respect people's basic rights as they go about their job, that is not a "victory for the good guys." Instead, it blurs the line between good guys and bad, and it perverts the purpose of government from protecting rights to violating them.

This is an unpleasant reminder as to why I am not a Republican.

You Send It

June 1, 2009

I'm very pleased with (https://www.yousendit.com/) YouSendIt.com. For no charge you can send files up to 100 megabytes in size to as many as 100 other people. You can pay a fee for larger files, more people, or added security. It's easy to use—you just need to set up an account and establish a password—and the service will send an e-mail straight to recipients telling them the file is available. (They have seven days to download it, again unless you pay extra for more time.) Today I sent a zipped folder of photos as well as a short video. Very cool.

Springtime In Colorado

June 1, 2009

We met family today at Dillon Lake off I-70. The clouds were spectacular, but the rain held off for most of the day. Here are three photos [omitted].

Now if we could just get a political scene as pretty as the mountains...

Building Taxes: A Tale of Three Cities

June 2, 2009

Three different Colorado newspapers recently published stories about how three different cities are handling building taxes in this time of economic recession. The cities are Denver, Loveland, and Boulder.

The Denver Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/05/18/daily71.html) reports, "The city of Denver will offer free building permits through the first half of June for home-improvement projects as a way to encourage economy-boosting renovation work. ... Building-permit fees normally range from $20 to several thousand dollars, depending on the value of the project."

Did you get that? A building permit for a home-improvement project can cost you as much as several thousand dollars! The city is implicitly granting that these high fees (or taxes; the difference between those terms is increasingly meaningless) hurt economic development. For two weeks the city will stop screwing home owners. But what about the rest of the time?

Still, this is the best story from among our three cities.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan (http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090601/BUSINESS/906010307/1046/rss03) reports:

McWhinney, Loveland Commercial and other developers will ask the Loveland City Council on Tuesday for a 25 percent reduction of 10 permitting fees in hopes of stimulating building in the city.

The reduction would last 18 months and target the city's community expansion fees, commonly referred to as CEFs. The fees generate revenue for streets, parks, recreation, trails, open space, the public library, the museum, general government, fire protection and law enforcement, assistant city manager Rod Wensing said.

The CEFs together cost $11,339 for every residential building permit issued in the city of Loveland.

So Loveland may give home owners a slight break for a year and a half.

And Boulder? Surely the city is following suit and considering easing building taxes and fees? Of course not.

Boulder's Daily Camera blared the headline, (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/may/31/new-development-taxes-boulder/) "Taxes on new Boulder developments could skyrocket." The paper reports, "For more than a year, the council has been studying whether to replace the city's voter-approved excise tax structure with an impact-fee system that circumvents voter approval and raises the amounts charged on new development."

The new taxes would be used to fund government projects and "affordable housing." Because Boulder has made housing so expensive through its building controls that few can afford housing there. So obviously Boulder needs to charge higher taxes on housing in order to make it more affordable. During a recession. Huh.

The unsophisticated layperson unacquainted with higher Boulder logic might imagine that such taxes would make housing less affordable for some in order to give others a government handout.

It's the sort of plan that has given Boulder its national reputation.

Defiance

June 3, 2009

(http://www.defiancemovie.com/) Defiance is a film new to DVD about a group of Jewish freedom fighters who fight the Nazis and struggle to maintain a camp of survivors. Like all films about Nazi atrocities, Defiance can be tough to watch. Yet in this film the emphasis is on the Jewish resistance, so there's plenty to cheer for.

Edward Zwick, who directed the film, wrote the foreword to a new release to the history book by Nechama Tec on which the film is based. Zwick writes:

[T]o see Jewish men and women standing shoulder to shoulder in the snowy woods, brandishing automatic weapons in their own defense, flies in the face of the most pernicious oversimplification of the Holocaust—one that minimizes the impulse of its victims to resist. And it is this impulse that Nechama Tec details with such ferocious clarity. Indeed, as contemporary scholarship has now revealed, resistance in fact found its expression in almost every city, town, and shtetl in Eastern Europe over which the shadows of extermination had fallen.

It is this spirit of defiance which animates the cry, "Never again!"

Comment by Don: I hope that Zwick and his Hollywood friends feel the same way about Israel. Spielberg doesn't seem to feel Israel has a right to use lethal force against those who would kill her citizens.

Comment by Charles T.: Just saw this film yesterday and enjoyed it very much. I recommend it strongly. Well-made despite a small budget, very strong acting. What a story. What people, to have survived what they did, the way they did. Truly heroic and moving.

Kim Pleasant: Whiner of the Day

June 3, 2009

I've decided to start issuing periodic "Whiner of the Day" awards. The first goes to Kim Pleasant, who shouted down Governor Bill Ritter yesterday. (I don't get many chances to defend Bill Ritter.)

Jessica Fender and Allison Sherry of the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12506973) recount the story:

About two dozen members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 crashed the Capitol gathering, standing watch in the back and shouting challenges to Ritter regarding his recent veto of House Bill 1170.

The bill would have made it easier for them to receive unemployment benefits if grocery-chain management locked them out of their work sites and potentially improved their standing in ongoing contract negotiations.

Ritter spoke to the protesters from the podium, saying "certainly my heart is with the people who have to put food on the table," but the state should not interfere with active labor disputes.

But his answers didn't satisfy Commerce City resident and Safe way worker Kim Pleasant, who shouted, "That is a lie! That is a lie!"

Ritter's veto of 1170 is one of the few things he's done right. If you're stupid enough to go on strike in the middle of a recession, when nearly one in ten people have lost their jobs and many more have taken pay cuts, the last thing you deserve is a tax subsidy for your stupidity. Just try to go on strike and see how much public sympathy you get.

The simple fact is that the typical job at the grocery store requires no special skills, training, or education. If you want a higher-paying job, then go back to school and work someplace else. But don't shout down the governor for protecting taxpayers (for once). At least wait till Ritter lies before calling him a liar.

So, Kim Pleasant, I'm pleased to name you the recipient of the first "Whiner of the Day" award. Please e-mail me your mailing address and I'll be happy to send you your award.

But don't take this as any indication that I'm pleased with Ritter's performance. While he did the right thing this one time, the general theme of his administration has been, "Screw the Taxpayer." Ritter has helped increase taxes or fees on vehicles, hospital visits, properties, sales, and so on.

As Fender and Sherry write, at the same event Ritter signed bills interfering in mortgages and offering more tax dollars for people not to work. Because, you know, during a recession we want to punish people who are working in order to incentivize others not to work.

I can hardly believe the incompetent and anti-freedom Republican Party left me no choice other than to (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) vote for this sham of a governor.

Judge Sotomayor's Relativism

June 4, 2009

While I usually write about regional issues here, today's national issues are so crucially important that I'll devote substantial space to the views of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated for the Supreme Court.

Empathy

First recall what President Obama offered in 2007 as a guideline for his nominee: "We need somebody who's got the heart to recognize—the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Richard Epstein (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/04/supreme-court-justice-opinions-columnists-epstein.html) replies:

Rather than targeting his favorite groups, Obama should follow the most time-honored image of justice: the blind goddess, Iustitia, carrying the scales of justice.

Iustitia is not blind to the general principles of human nature. Rather her conception of blindness follows Aristotle's articulation of corrective justice in his Nicomachean ethics. In looking at a dispute between an injurer and an injured party, or between a creditor and debtor, the judge ignores personal features of the litigant that bear no relationship to the merits of the case.

In other words, it shouldn't matter whether you're rich or poor, black or white, or whatever: if you commit a crime, you deserve the same punishment as everybody else. If you are involved in a civil dispute, you deserve to have your rights protected. A judge's job is not to "empathize" with one party over the other, but to achieve justice, regardless of the individual characteristics of the parties.

'Gender and National Origins'

Before delving into some of Sotomayor's judicial opinions, we might look in more detail at her (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html) 2001 Berkeley speech, as reproduced by the New York Times.

Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture; she praised Olmos for "promoting equality and justice for all people." (I don't know what views Olmos actually endorsed.) Notice the "and:" equality and justice are two distinct goals. Sotomayor is not advocating equality under the law, the sort of impartiality that Iustitia represents. She is advocating equality as a goal above and beyond justice. But equality in the egalitarian sense and justice are contradictory goals.

One who has not earned wealth does not deserve a portion of it equal to the one who has earned it. The criminal is not equal in stature to his victim, nor does he deserve equal treatment. A person who strives to improve his character is not the moral equal of one who does not.

For a frightening look at what egalitarianism means in practice, see the (http://www.finallyequal.com/) preview for the film 2081, or read the (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) short story by Kurt Vonnegut on which it is based. (My only complaint with the story is that it emphasizes physical differences, when the important issue is the greatness of mind and character that people can achieve by their own effort.) Or read Aristophanes's classic, "Assembly of Women."

Sotomayor is skeptical that "we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way."

On a positive note, she says her parents taught her "to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it." This signals that Sotomayor is not dedicated to strict egalitarianism, yet a pragmatic, partial egalitarianism remains troublesome.

Sotomayor devotes considerable space to outlining the advancement of women and minorities in the judicial system. Her entire analysis focuses on numbers, not attributes. She urges "Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country... to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system." In other words, racial equality—i.e., quotas—is for her a primary goal, not merely a coincidental consequence of promoting the most qualified people for the positions.

Sotomayor distinguishes her views from those of Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, which she summarizes:

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. ... While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.

Sotomayor views this as a quaint and unrealistic ideal: "Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases."

To rephrase, Sotomayor thinks it is usually not possible for judges to fully "transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law."

She continues, "And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

Sotomayor is confusing physical distinctions with equality under the law. Equality before the law does not imply that we ignore all differences between different people. Good judges need not give equal consideration to both males and females as potential romantic partners, for instance. Yet, when it comes to applying the law, it is precisely the setting aside of legally irrelevant differences that is the key to justice.

Sotomayor then considers two possible causes of racially "different perspectives." The first is a difference in "cultural experiences." No problem there. But the second is the "postulate" that "we have basic differences in logic and reasoning." In other words, Sotomayor seriously entertains the notion that logic is different for people of different skin colors.

And here Sotomayor entertains a blatantly racist doctrine. The notion that logic—and therefore the truth—is different depending on the color of your skin constitutes a vicious doctrine at odds with the view set out by the Declaration of Independence and echoed by Martin Luther King that all people are created equal in their essential humanity, which is their capacity to use their reasoning mind to discover the facts of reality.

Some people are better at reasoning than others, generally because they have worked harder at it, but reason is the most essentially human capacity that we all share, and in its fundamental functioning it is the same for everybody. It is in this sense that we are all created equal, and this is the foundation of our equality under the law (rather than in abilities or in wealth).

If different people have a different logic and a different truth, then universal standards of justice are impossible. Justice becomes merely the system that one group sets up and enforces over other groups, which have inherently different conceptions of justice. This explains Sotomayor's obsession with judicial racial quotas; the judicial system cannot be fair to different racial groups unless those racial groups share the authority.

Of course, often a lack of representation by some group in the legal system stems from entrenched bigotry against that group, and then the judicial makeup reflects that injustice. But the solution to this problem is to end the entrenched bigotry and promote people according to their individual merits in order to enforce the universal standards of justice. Sotomayor's approach promises only to replace one racist approach with another.

Sotomayor's views quickly collapse to personal subjectivism. If different races have different logics and different truths, then perhaps individuals within those groups also have different truths. Sotomayor continues that there is "not a feminist approach but many," though all of them "are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation" and will never be fully "solidified." Presumably the same analysis applies to race-based "logic."

Sotomayor agrees with Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard, who said "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives."

Sotomayor indeed praises the use of the judicial system to achieve egalitarian outcomes (with no noted consideration of individual rights), pointing out that "Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment." In other words, employers and employees must not be left free to agree to terms of labor; employers have no right to control their resources; the federal government must step in and decide what constitutes "equal" work, pay, and conditions.

Not only do different people have different "logics," by Sotomayor's account, they may have different inborn psychologies, too, leading to her most controversial lines:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

As has been noted, the following variation of Sotomayor's line would be roundly and correctly condemned as racist: "A wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life." Yet for some reason we are expected to give Sotomayor a pass, and indeed place her on the highest court in the land to decide fundamental law.

Sotomayor does grant that "others of different experiences or backgrounds are [capable] of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group." The notion that varied experience in the courts is a good thing is defensible and not racist. The problem is that Sotomayor blends this view with the racist view that different people have inborn and inherently different logics (and therefore truths), as well as psychological dispositions. It is true that our experiences help make us who we are. Yet people of all experiences can come to understand the facts of a particular case and evaluate those facts by universal standards of justice. Thus, what truly matters is not diversity of experience, but the self-generated qualifications of the individuals under consideration.

Sotomayor does not fully commit herself to the racist, relativist view that she sometimes adopts. Instead, she mixes this view with the suppositions of universal justice. She promises "constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives."

It is precisely this mixing of incompatible views that poses a problem. If Sotomayor consistently upheld the racist strains of her ideas, she would be dismissed by everyone and never would have progressed in the judicial system. The problem is that, by allowing herself room to judge based on race and gender, rather than on the universal standards of justice, she threatens to sometimes rewrite the law as she sees fit, based on her own prejudices.

Sotomayor recognizes that "there is always a danger embedded in relative morality." We should take her seriously on this point and hesitate to send an avowed moral relativist to the Supreme Court.

Didden v. Village of Port Chester

How does Sotomayor's judicial relativism play out in practice? Here I'll mention three cases reviewed by others.

Richard Epstein takes issue with Sotomayor's reasoning in (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nomination-obama-opinions-columnists-sonia-sotomayor.html) Didden v. Village of Port Chester of 2006:

Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion--one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The "or else" was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation." ...

Justice Stevens wrote that the public deliberations over a comprehensive land use plan is what saved the condemnation of Ms. Kelo's home from constitutional attack. Just that element was missing in the Village of Port Chester fiasco.

United States v. Toner

Dave Kopel (http://volokh.com/posts/1243930775.shtml) takes a look at Sotomayor's language in a Second Amendment case. The details are more complex than I want to review here (see Kopel's complete write-up), but the upshot is that Sotomayor held that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Kopel argues that this claim is without foundation, summarizing, "Judges Sotomayor, Pooler, and Katzman simply presumed--with no legal reasoning--that the right to arms is not a fundamental right."

Race-Based Promotions

Thomas Sowell (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060209.php3) summarizes a third case:

Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well.

As is obvious from her own words and from her judicial decisions, Judge Sotomayor uses her race-based relativism as a pretext to promote her leftist agenda in court. We should expect her to continue that tactic if she rises to the Supreme Court.

Comment by Clear The Bench Colorado: Actually, Ari, there IS a local/regional connection or perspective on this issue: the current majority on our own Colorado Supreme Court has been handing down rulings and deciding cases in much the same manner as Judge Sotomayor.
Indeed, the partisan bias and disregard for the rule of law displayed by this court majority is absolutely outrageous.
For more on judicial relativism, view the post on "What Makes a Good Judge?" at http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/05/05/rule-of-law-or-rule-by-whimsy-or-what-makes-a-good-judge/
For specific examples linking Sotomayor's attacks on individual property rights with similar decisions by our own state Supreme Court, view http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/06/03/judicial-attacks-on-individual-property-rights-in-the-spotlight-from-kelo-to-telluride-with-sotomayor-in-between/

Meniskus Releases Partyer!

June 5, 2009

The Colorado band (http://meniskusband.com/) Meniskus released the single "Partyer" last night at the Fox Theatre in Boulder.

"Partyer" should be available soon on iTunes. For now, you can listen to it streaming on the group's (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Meniskus/57124858784) Facebook page.

While you're there, make sure to check out "Brigade," "Letters," and "Overbearing." I consider these the band's four greatest songs, and an impressive collection for a relatively young band. If these songs hook you, you'll become a Meniskus fan. (Note: I like the version of "Letters" on Foreign Beyond best. You can also see the video for "Letters" on the Facebook page.)

I'm hoping that "Partyer" is the most radio and party-friendly release so far, and that it draws attention to some of the other songs. It deserves to become a popular hit song.

Dried Strawberries

June 8, 2009

King Soopers is selling strawberries for a buck a pound, not a bad deal, so we've dried sixteen pounds, with another eight to go.

Pictured here are eight pounds of strawberries loaded into a large (http://www.excaliburdehydrator.com/) Excalibur Dehydrator. As you can see, this yielded nine cups of dried strawberries, perfect out of the jar, on salads, etc.

(We have so much work to do on the house, yard, and garden over the summer that I'll probably blog more about that and less about cultural and political issues for a while. We also planted 48 tomato plants yesterday, and I'm a bit sore from digging holes.)

Sam Adams Alliance Awards Videos

June 8, 2009

I went to Chicago on April 18 to pick up an award from the Sam Adams Alliance. My speech is (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/speech-at-sam-adams-alliance-awards.html) transcribed elsewhere.

I strongly encourage other liberty-oriented activists in Colorado (and around the nation) to (http://samadamsalliance.org/) check out the Sam Adams Alliance web page and think about entering the contest next year.

Now the Sam Adams Alliance has released a short YouTube video with highlights of the event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcJWoik39jY

The video of my speech, and the introduction by Paul Jacob, is also available:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfRiQZSQTPg

[The Sam Adams Alliance has a short video with highlights of the event.]

Are You a Conservative or a Liberal?

June 8, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090608/COLUMNISTS/906089997/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published June 8, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

The recent Tea Party in Grand Junction arose in response to increasing government intervention in the economy. It was a spirited event, attended by old friends and people from all social and economic backgrounds.

The Western Slope Conservative Alliance held a follow-up rally, where the word "conservative" echoed through nearly every sentence. Unfortunately, nobody seemed to use the term with a common meaning.

What does it mean to be a conservative? Many of the same conservatives who claim to support free markets and liberty also endorse economic protectionism, censorship, welfare spending, corporate welfare, immigration restrictions, prohibitions of various substances and activities that violate nobody's rights, abortion bans, and so on.

Liberalism, one might think, has something to do with liberty. Yet today's liberals endorse political economic planning on a vast scale. They typically want to forcibly redistribute more wealth, impose controls on private property, and impose more "enlightened" forms of censorship.

Many of today's conservatives and liberals find common cause in the belief that politicians should largely control your life.

Economist and freedom fighter F. A. von Hayek said, "Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism..."

Russian immigrant Ayn Rand, known for her strong anti-socialist, anti- communist views, wondered, "What are the 'conservatives'? What is it that they are seeking to 'conserve'?" She wrote, "If the 'conservatives' do not stand for capitalism, they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone."

Yet smug liberals who mock "backward" conservatives have more than a thing or two to learn themselves. They could begin by reviewing Thomas Paine's discussions with Edmund Burke regarding the French Revolution, mob law, and the rule of the masses.

Self-proclaimed liberals might also review Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, with its emphasis on natural rights, free speech, and freedom of religion.

Hayek was as critical of liberals as he was of conservatives, writing that "'liberal' has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium."

Rand was yet more severe: "The majority of those who are loosely identified by the term 'liberals' are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to accept the full meaning of their goal; they want to keep all the advantages and effects of capitalism, while destroying the cause, and they want to establish statism without its necessary effects. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery."

Rand also wrote, "The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men."

Or, as a local friend (Roger) summarized, "If we cannot succinctly and accurately define what distinguishes a conservative from a liberal, the label is meaningless."

If you call yourself a conservative, what is it that you are trying to conserve? The massive welfare state built up in the 20th Century? A religious conception of law? The tradition of encroaching political power?

Or if you fancy yourself a liberal, are you trying to liberate bureaucrats to oversee our lives?

We suggest that conservatives busy themselves with conserving the founding principles of our nation, the ideals of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness free from political interference.

Likewise, liberals should liberate people to run their own lives and control their own resources, according to their own judgment, free from political controls.

In either case, the proper purpose of government may be summarized as the protection of individual rights, which in the economic sphere means the establishment of capitalism.

We appreciate the perspective of economist George Reisman, who argues, "To the extent that present conditions departed from [capitalism, its defenders] would be radicals in seeking to change present conditions. To the extent that conditions in the past had approximated laissez-faire capitalism, they would be reactionary in seeking to reestablish such conditions. To the extent that present conditions were consistent with laissez-faire capitalism, they would be conservative in seeking to preserve those conditions."

We really don't care whether you call yourself conservative or liberal. What we care about is whether you defend or undermine individual rights.

Tomato Patch

June 10, 2009

Jennifer and I—with some help from Jennifer's sister—planted 48 tomato plants on Sunday. We had been shooting for 60, but 48 fit our space better. We have poor soil, so we planted each plant in a hole with "planter's mix" soil. We also planted assorted squash.

A word of warning: I called and had my utility lines marked, but in one case we found a line several feet away from the marking. (The guideline is 18 inches on either side.) So apparently the markings are largely guesses. I also suggest that you photograph the markings, so if you hit an unmarked line you have a good defense against related fees. At our old place a landscaping company hit an unmarked Comcast line, and the company's careful documentation prevented Comcast from passing along the repair fees.

It may not look pretty, but all I care about is the survival and growth of my tomato plants. Next year we hope to have a considerably prettier yard (which had completely reverted to weeds when we bought it last summer).

Comment by Monica: Oh my god. First of all, let me say you are going to have a TON of tomatoes (you already know this)! I planted exactly that many plants about 5 years ago and the results were astounding. There was a lot of canning and freezing going on and we gave a ton of vegetables away too (we also grew everything else under the sun). I only regret that we could not eat them all fresh as they ripened. I'd love to hear what varieties you planted. Brandywine are my favorite. Second, let me say I'm SO jealous! I just didn't have time for a vegetable garden this year, particularly with the greater amount of work and resources required at high altitude. I hope you photograph the results!

Brook Addresses Virginia Republicans

June 10, 2009

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Center recently offered a (http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=120656424008&h=WkWi-&u=2nSYG&ref=nf) keynote address for the 2009 Republican convention in Virginia.

If you are a Republican—or if, like me, you hope for a Republican resurgence along proper ideals—please listen to this speech. The future of your party—and the future of our nation—depends upon the kinds of ideas that Brook discusses.

If you are an advocate of liberty and individual rights, watch the speech from the perspective of how to craft an effective message.

Liberty in Religion and Medicine

June 10, 2009

Today's Denver Post published a (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/06/09/church-and-medicine/#comment-155835) letter from Kaye Fissinger titled, "Church and medicine." She argues that Catholic churches should not be able to practice "Catholic doctrine on birth control, sterilization and abortion."

Following is my online reply:

I advocate the separation of church and state. I also advocate freedom and individual rights—a free market—in medicine. Kaye Fissinger's position violates both ideals.

Women have the right to get an abortion—from willing providers. Patients do not have the right to force hospitals or doctors to offer abortions—or any procedure—against their judgment.

Likewise, customers do not have the right to demand that any business provide some good or service. You have no right to require that a car dealer sell the truck you want to buy, or a grocer particular produce, or a book store a particular book. If you walked into a Marxist bookshop and demanded to purchase Ayn Rand, for instance, that would be a violation of the bookstore's right of free speech. You do, however, have every right not to shop at that store.

The ones who properly set policy at a hospital are its owners. If a church owns a hospital, the church properly decides policy there. The owners do owe potential patients full disclosure regarding their faith-based policies. I would choose to do business elsewhere.

Doctors who disagree are free to work elsewhere. If you work for a bookstore, you agree to sell the books the owners wish to sell. The principle is no different when it comes to medicine. If you wish to sell different books or perform different medical procedures, get a job someplace else.

Hospitals should not need to rely on "conscience clauses" to protect their rights of property and contract. Likewise, a bookstore owner who dislikes pornography or some other sort of publication should not have to pass some "conscience" test to abstain from selling such works. Yet the logical implication of Fissinger's view is that somebody should be able to walk into a Christian bookstore and demand a book praising abortion, atheism, Satanism, or whatever (or into an atheist bookstore and demand a copy of the Bible).

Fissinger's interpretation of the First Amendment is completely wrong. The First Amendment prohibits state establishment of religion. It does not guarantee lack of dominance of some doctrine. For example, (http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/) 75 percent of Americans are Christian. The First Amendment does not require mass conversion to other religions in order to prevent Christian "dominance."

The fundamental problem in medicine is that there is no free market in health care. Governments spend more than half of all health-care dollars. Tax-funded hospitals, like tax-funded schools, should not be able to impose any faith-based practice. The solution to this problem is not to expand political control of hospitals, but to return to liberty in medicine.

Comment by Dave Barnes: "The ones who properly set policy at a hospital are its owners." Wrong.
The ones who set policy are the customers whose money is accepted.

Comment by Ari: Dave, your comment is frankly ridiculous. It is true that businesses (on a free market) earn money by providing goods and services that willing customers pay to obtain, and in that sense customers help direct policy. A business that finds no willing customers will (again on a free market) go out of business. Yet, obviously, businesses decide what goods and services to sell and how to operate their properties, and businesses all the time tell customers that they don't offer this or that good or service. Property owners properly set policy for the property, and that's as true of homeowners as it is of business owners. The entire point is that (at least some) Catholic hospitals do not wish to accept money to perform abortions. Yet some people wish to force them to do so, and that is wrong. The key is the right to contract. Business owners have the right to sell what they want (within the bounds of individual rights), and customers have the right to buy what they want. A transaction takes place when the two can agree on something. It takes two (or more) willing participants to engage in market transactions.

Comment by Elisheva Hannah Levin: How much less anger there would be, and how much more good will, if people recognized your point. People have the right to run their businesses the way they see fit. And others have the right not to patronize businesses that sell things they do not want.

Say It Ain't So, Joe

June 11, 2009

I met Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher at the Sam Adams Alliance awards event April 18. My (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/interviews-at-sam-adams-alliance-awards.html) interview with him is available on YouTube. Joe struck me as a fun and friendly guy with some good leanings if a superficial understanding of individual rights.

I thought I was lobbing a softball when I asked him, "What do you see as the central proper purpose of the federal government? What is your basic message? What do the politicians go to Washington, DC to do?"

He began to complain about the "growth of government" under various presidents, then praised Teddy Roosevelt for nationalizing wilderness lands. I thought his answer on this point was basically wrong and that it lacked substance. But overall I thought he came across as a relatively well-informed and well-spoken "man from the street."

But then I heard about a couple of unfortunate comments he's made elsewhere, so of course I had to look them up.

(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/mayweb-only/118-13.0.html) In Christianity Today, where he argues that states should have the ability to ban abortion (which I (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) regard as totally wrong and a violation of basic rights), he says of "queer" people (homosexuals): "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children." That's just straight-up bigotry.

(He added, "I would love to hear our leaders actually check with God before he does stuff.")

Elsewhere, (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/27/jtp-congressmen-should-be-shot/) Joe said, "Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot 'em. And there'd be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don't talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict." That's just stupid. You don't shoot people for criticizing the military. Hello, free speech?

What's interesting about this in the context of Colorado politics is that the Independence Institute (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/caldara-reviews-initiatives-buckley.html) again bumped Christopher Buckley, an Obama supporter, this time for the (http://www.i2i.org/main/event.php?event_id=59) ATF party on June 20, in favor of Joe the Plumber. Buckley is the author of Thank You for Smoking, which, it seems to me, would have fit the theme of the event rather well. Meanwhile, it's unclear to me what anti-nanny credentials Joe the Plumber brings to the table. Being at times a politically-incorrect ass is hardly the same thing as fighting the nanny state.

Still Charmed

June 16, 2009

Jennifer and I are watching Charmed on Netflix (as the DVDs cost quite a lot to purchase). Sure, some of the episodes are silly, some of the acting is poor, and sometimes the focus seems to be on hiring pretty faces. In case you've missed it, Charmed is about three sisters with magical powers.

Sometimes, though, the writing is superb. And I really like the central characters. Tonight we watched "Awakened" from the second season. It and "Morality Bites" are the two best episodes of the show so far, as far as I'm concerned. Both have the same theme: integrity. Doing the wrong thing can have unforeseen and disastrous consequences.

In "Awakened," Piper (one of the sisters) brings unsafe fruit into her club, and she contracts a dangerous illness from an insect in the box. Then, the sisters try to save her by misusing magic, and that creates many more problems.

Unfortunately, the moral rules by which they use their powers are arbitrary and ambiguous. The idea is that they cannot use their power "for personal gain." But that's clearly not an enforced rule; all the time they use their powers to save themselves from nefarious creatures. Even if we add the exception of fighting magical villains, the characters still use their powers for personal gain all the time. For example, Piper regularly freezes people merely to chat privately with her sisters or to resolve some awkward situation. In the previous episode, another sister uses her powers to help care for a baby, for her own convenience.

So the sensible rule seems to be something more like, "Don't try to control innocent people for unearned gain."

The ridiculousness of the magical rules becomes obvious near the end of "Awakened." Somehow it's bad for two of the sisters to save the third from a non-magical malady by the use of magic, even though this is not for "personal gain," yet it's noble for another magical being to save Piper through magic (even though he's punished for it by his order).

However, if you abstract away from the silly magical rules to the universal theme of integrity, it's a good story. And the theme is actually carried off much better when a third sister quits her job in protest of her boss selling a painting she knows is not authentic. The show avoids the same flaw often enough to remain interesting.

Mormon Missionaries

June 16, 2009

I just passed a couple of Mormon missionaries on the way back from King Soopers. We had a very pleasant conversation for ten minutes or so, which I'll summarize here.

They asked me if I'd ever talked with a Mormon missionary. I said yes, and I don't believe a word of it. We quickly established that I don't believe in God and therefore regard every religion as false.

I suggested that in the coming years they allow themselves to seriously question the underpinnings of their religion. I pointed out that the community ties of Mormonism, a strength of the religion in many ways, also bears the danger that many Mormons adhere to their beliefs largely because of social pressure. We talked about the fact that, around the world, people tend to follow the religious beliefs with which they were raised.

One of the missionaries said that he listens to the Holy Spirit, which guided him in working through his doubts about the religion. I pointed out that such an approach is circular. By assuming the Holy Spirit exists, you're assuming the entire supernaturalist framework. To evaluate a religion at a fundamental level, it is precisely supernaturalism that must be questioned. I added that, what he sees as guidance from the Holy Spirit, I regard as self-talk; he's basically working through a problem mentally, and when he comes to persuade himself on some point, he mistakes this as guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the general issue of faith, I replied that one should base beliefs on reason rooted in the evidence of the senses, not resort to faith. After all, I argued, if faith is the reason to accept Mormonism, then why not accept on faith any other religion, such as Catholicism or Islam?

One fellow replied with two prongs of the faith line. First, he argued that the scriptures contain some verifiable wisdom. I replied that, to be sustainable as a religion, any religion must adopt a certain amount of common-sense wisdom, which by its nature is not inherently religious. (Scripture also contains a lot of bad advice, I added.) For example, I accept the view common among religions (but not inherently religious) that murder and adultery are wrong. So the fact that scripture might contain some truth does not justify a belief in the religion. Next, the fellow argued that, while we can go a long way on reason, finally we must resort to faith. I said that "punting" to faith is no way to ground beliefs, nor is it compatible ultimately with being honest with one's self.

Mormon missionaries tend to be young (one of the ones I talked with, a nineteen year old, nevertheless bears the title, "Elder"), which is why I tried to emphasize that they seriously question their beliefs over the next few years. I certainly don't think people have some sort of responsibility to try to persuade Mormon missionaries that their religion is false, and they are trained to handle discussions (in pairs, in something like a "good cop, bad cop" relationship). But I was up for it, and I thought that if they want me to consider their ideas, they might as well consider mine.

They asked me if I wanted a Book of Mormon. I said I already have a copy. I said that I'm on my way to read Atlas Shrugged in preparation for a reading group. I suggested that they read it, too.

Comment by lehislibrary: I was once a LDS missionary. As a word of guidance for those who run across LDS missionaries, please don't be disappointed when you find them to NOT be theologically or philosophically sophisticated. They simply are not, and they are not meant to be. It just isn't part of their job description. Likewise, don't make the terrible mistake of assuming that these kids are able to provide the best apologetic responses that the LDS can muster. I say all of this as a faithful believing LDS. Thanks!

Comment by Ryan O.: None of the points discussed had anything to do with techinical theology; they were the broader issues of faith and reason. No answer, no matter how sophisticated, will persuade an atheist who dismisses religion on principle. A person who argues fine points of theology has already conceded whatever context in which such points might arise. Ari's discussion with these missionaries was polite, challenging and most appropriate.

Sandstorm In Iran

June 16, 2009

With all the bad news at home, I was inspired to see a photo of mass (http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,7445,00.html#2_0) demonstrations in Iran, posted by Fox.

There are also plenty photos of blood and fire. Police forces have brutalized many and (http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,7445,00.html#9_0) killed some. So the news is also tragic and frightening.

And yet, people are marching, people are speaking out, and—sometimes—for the right reasons.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is doing as little as possible to support reform.

Obviously, the protests are much larger than the presidential elections in Iran. Yet Mir-Hossein Mousavi is better than the tyrant Ahmadinejad. For example, Mousavi wants (http://www.presstv.com/election2009/detail.aspx?id=90057) privately owned media, rather than state-owned propaganda machines. He has his serious problems; for instance, he pledged to (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,622225,00.html) "not suspend uranium enrichment," and he says he does (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,622225-2,00.html) not recognize Israel. Yet he also says, "I also believe that the abolition of the religious police is possible."

So Iran is hardly on the brink of a resoundingly pro-liberty revolution. And this could end very, very badly; some (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html) speculate that Ahmadinejad left the country so that escalated violence "would not reflect on him."

Still, it's good to see that many Iranians have the heart for something better. What can ultimately save Iran is the same thing that can ultimately save the United States and the world: a philosophy of reason and individual rights.

Here's my favorite line from the protests: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/middleeast/17iran.html) "Ahmadinejad called us dust, we showed him a sandstorm."

Kudos to Twitter

June 16, 2009

Google caved to Chinese censors. But Twitter is actively helping the Iranian protesters retain free speech.

As Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526403,00.html) reports:

Iranian Twitterers, many writing in English, posted photos of huge demonstrations and bloodied protesters throughout the weekend, detailing crackdowns on students at Tehran University and giving out proxy Web addresses that let users bypass the Islamic Republic's censors.

By Monday evening, it had become such a movement that Twitter postponed maintenance scheduled for the wee hours of the morning, California time—midday Tuesday in Iran.

"Our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran," wrote Twitter co-founder Biz Stone in a blog posting.

"Tonight's planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran)," he added.

I have signed on to Facebook, but I've resisted Twitter. Obviously, I may have underestimated the importance of the service.

The Stoning of Soraya M.

June 17, 2009

Who was Soraya M.? She was a young woman murdered by Islamist thugs in 1986. She is every woman who continues to suffer under Islamist tyranny around the world.

Most of the horror stories we never hear about. One story has been made into a film, (http://thestoning.com/) The Stoning of Soraya M. I am not looking forward to watching it. But watch it I must.

[September 14, 2014 Update: The video in question is no longer available at YouTube.]

Comment by Roya: It is important for people to know what continues to happen in many different cultures around the world. I saw the movie and can attest that i was crying, but i was crying because it is long overdue not telling the truth and getting support from world leaders. The stoning sequence is difficult only because you identify with the character; Mozan did an excellent job with the character and the director makes everyone remember that something can be done to stop this and improve women's rights. Thank you Shohreh and the rest of the cast for stepping up!

Save the Flies!

June 18, 2009

Move over, whales. Chill out, penguins and polar bears. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a new campaign: save the flies.

Yes, the flies. As in, the maggot-laying, filthy flies.

No, this is not a story from the Onion. Apparently we're not getting punk'd. It's not April Fool's Day. PETA seriously wants to save the flies. Not the flies joyously buzzing about in the wild, the flies in your house. No joke.

During filming of an interview with Barack Obama on CNBC, a fly pestered the president. Obama said, and I quote, "Hey, get out of here." The interviewer said, "That's the most persistent fly I've ever seen." Then the fly landed on Obama's left hand, and Obama gave it good hard slap with his right hand, killing it, dead, dead, dead. The interviewer said (and again I quote directly), "Nice." Obama said, "Now, where were we? That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker... It's right there, you want to film that? There it is."

Why, the heartless bastard. See the travesty for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbUH_iVjYw

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527001,00.html) According to the Associated Press, "PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside."

If you think this is a joke, check out PETA's store, where you can (https://www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp?number=HP220) purchase the contraption for a mere eight dollars.

As the AP reports, PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said, "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals. We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals... [S]watting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect, and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."

Okay. Let me just come out and say it. The PETA crew is insane. It is not "humane" to catch a fly and release it into the wild. It is stupid. It is pathetic. It is ridiculous. It is insulting to the humanity—and the intelligence—of actual people.

The reality is that Obama's swift, decisive action toward the fly ranks among his most impressive moments as president. If Obama would stand up to Ahmadinejad's Iran or North Korea with half the backbone that he stood up to that fly, I wouldn't worry nearly as much about the threat of nuclear warfare.

Cuffy Geithner

June 18, 2009

I'm re-reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged right now, and this story sounds like it comes straight out of the novel:

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703902.html) Core Reforms Held Firm As Much Else Fell Away
In Triage Mode, Economic Team's Goal To Expand Fed's Power Trumped Others
By David Cho and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 18, 2009

... Fresh from meeting with Obama, [Treasury Secretary Timothy F.] Geithner asked the lobbyists what they were up to. When they explained they preferred that a council of regulators, rather than the central bank, safeguard the financial markets, Geithner silenced the discussion with a string of obscenities, according to people who were present.

"I don't believe in rule by committee," he said. ...

Apparently, in Geithner's world the only alternative to "rule by committee" is rule by a strong man.

Are you paying attention, friends?

Comment by Greg: Thank you for putting the name to the face. I've just finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the third time and it's always interesting to put today's "leaders" (VERY loosely using the term) into the characters that Rand created. Amazing how well today's gov't fits. Thanks Ari!

Twitter, Here I Come

June 19, 2009

Color me green. I'm joining the Twitter revolution. So here's how I plan to work it: I'll use my Facebook account for personal news and (http://twitter.com/ariarmstrong) my Twitter account to post news and updates about Colorado politics related to liberty. I'll also post some stories about national and religious items.

Follow me!

Mango

June 19, 2009

If you're looking for a delicious and healthy snack, dried fruit is hard to beat. But it has to be good dried fruit, starting with good fresh fruit, and without a bunch of added junk. Fruits that dry well without additives include (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/06/dried-strawberries.html) strawberries, peaches, apricots, and cherries. (I did bananas once, but you have to soak them in something—I used orange juice—and they're a complete mess. Good, though.)

And mangos.

Shown here is one sliced mango on a dehydrator tray, with two jars of dried mango in the background [photo omitted].

All you need is a good (http://www.excaliburdehydrator.com/) dehydrator, some good, ripe (but not mushy!) mangos (Costco is currently selling them for around $7.50 for nine), and a good knife (my tool of choice is a (http://www.wusthof.com/en/classic.asp) Wusthof classic paring knife). And some time.

(I can't think of mangos now without thinking about the Flight of the Conchords mutha uckin fruit song.)

Twitter Feed

June 20, 2009

Readers may notice a new feature on this web page: a Twitter feed for links to Colorado news of interest to free-market activists. I'll also post a few links to national stories. I'm devoting my Twitter account exclusively to such posts. I've also started tagging my Twitter entries with a single all-caps word to help categorize the issue.

(http://twitter.com/ariarmstrong) Follow me on Twitter!

Sotomayor On Abortion

June 22, 2009

I have made my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/06/judge-sotomayors-relativism.html) opinion of Sonia Sotomayor clear: her race-based politics and judicial relativism pose serious threats to the legal system.

In the case of abortion, however, the enemies of my enemy remain my enemies. Sotomayor has come under fire for supporting the right to get an abortion, though I regard that as among the few points in her favor. (Radio host (https://twitter.com/jimpfaff) Jim Pfaff turned me on the the stories quoted here, though apparently we're on opposite sides of the issue.)

(http://catholicexchange.com/2009/06/22/119550/) According to Paul Kengor writing for Catholic Exchange, Senator Jim DeMint said, "When I asked [Sotomayor] if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it... This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages." (Sotomayor's opinion here comes to us indirectly, via an obviously partisan senator.)

Part of DeMint's line (absent the context) made it into Charmaine Yoest's (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/22/sotomayor-worse-than-souter/) op-ed for the Washington Times. "Charmaine Yoest is president and chief executive officer of Americans United for Life (AUL)... [which] has been involved in every pro-life case before the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade."

As background, last year I co-wrote a (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) paper arguing that it is the anti-abortion stance that is, in fact, anti-life. Abortion bans would threaten the lives of some pregnant women, force some women to bear deformed fetuses against their will, force pregnancies even in cases of rape and incest, and interfere with birth control, scientific research, fertilization medicine, and a woman's right to control her own life and future. Personhood begins at birth, when a fetus leaves the mother's body and becomes a biologically separate and independent entity. Only religious faith can endorse the view that a fertilized egg is a person with the same rights as a newborn baby—and religious faith conflicts with the requirements of objective law.

Significantly, Yoest bases her case, not on principles of objective law, but on popularity polls. The writes that "the overwhelming majority of Americans... support at least some restrictions on abortion." For example, "polls show" that "informed consent and parental notification" laws "are supported by at least 70 percent of the American public." I have not checked into the polling data—though I suspect that the results depend very much on how the questions are worded (for instance, "informed consent" in this context means forcibly restricting a woman from getting an abortion for a period that politicians deem appropriate). The point is that Constitutional law is not properly determined by opinion polls.

Yoest writes that Sotomayor is guilty of "reading a 'fundamental right' to abortion into the Constitution." This is indeed ironic, given that the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention abortion, yet it does explicitly name the right to keep and bear arms. As Dave Kopel (http://volokh.com/posts/1243930775.shtml) writes, Sotomayor has also found that "the right to arms is not a fundamental right." The fact that Sotomayor can find a fundamental right for something not named in the Bill of Rghts, but not for something explicitly named, indeed points to her prejudices.

Yet the entire doctrine of "fundamental" and non-fundamental rights is a judicial fiction completely at odds with the founding philosophy of the nation. Yoest is no less guilty than Sotomayor of ignoring the plain language of the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yoest refers to "common-sense restrictions on abortion"—without explaining how the restrictions she favors comport with common sense (much less individual rights). Her language mirrors that of anti-gun activists who speak of "common-sense restrictions" on the right to bear arms. Yoest's clear intent is to undermine individual rights at the whim of mob rule.

Yoest does rightly raises two troubling issues. The matter of parental notification is not obvious. The argument against it is that parents have no right to force their pre-adult teens to take on a lifetime commitment to raising a child. The other troubling issue is "state and federal funding of abortion." Yoest is right to oppose it, as forcing people to fund abortions violates their rights. However, so long as the state funds medical procedures, to limit funding for one procedure to meet the demands of religious faith violates the separation of church and state. The only solution is to end state funding of medical procedures across the board. If Yoest favors that position, she does not state it in her op-ed.

Ultimately, Yoest falls into the same error as Sotomayor of subverting objective law to subjective experience. Whether the subjective experience is said to arise from the genes or from supernatural communion, the result is the same: the destruction of individual rights.

Comment by Frank: well it doesnt much matter now, because Sotomayor looks as though shes in... (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/16/gop-envisions-august-senate-vote-sotomayor/?feat=home_cube_position1) August Vote

Sotomayor Contributed to Mortgage Crisis

June 22, 2009

I continue my (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/06/sotomayor-on-abortion.html) comments on Sonia Sotomayor today by pointing to an article about Sotomayor's role in the mortgage meltdown (thanks again to (http://twitter.com/jimpfaff) Jim Pfaff.)

John Carney (http://www.businessinsider.com/sonia-sotomayors-mortgage-policy-problem-2009-6) writes:

Sonia Sotomayor... served on the board of a New York State agency charged with providing discounted mortgages to middle and low income homebuyers from 1987 to 1992. During the time, she was a consistent advocate of pushing the agency to provide more mortgages to low-income home buyers. In short, she advocated the kind of aggressive lending practices that helped create the mortgage meltdown. ...

The agency, which is called SONYMA, is a local version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It initially provided mortgage insurance to first time homebuyers, mostly on middle-income housing. It expanded into lower-income homebuyers and then into directly buying mortgages in an attempt to push down mortgage rates. During her time on the agency's board, Sotomayor was a consistent critic of its activities, (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19mortgage.html) according to this story in the New York Times. And her critique was always the same: not enough loans were being insured on homes for lower-income and minority buyers.

As Carney notes, while Sotomayor's participation preceded the major bubble, the sorts of policies she (and many others) advocated led directly to the mortgage crisis.

For a more complete account of how federal policies created the mortgage bubble and subsequent bust, read Thomas Sowell's The Housing Boom and Bust.

Wordpress Experience

June 23, 2009

Obviously I run with Blogger, but I've been curious about (http://wordpress.com/) WordPress and occasionally irritated with Google (as when they shut down George Reisman's blog as "spam" for a time). Today I had the opportunity to try WordPress, so I figured I'd share a few comments about the experience.

One of my friends, Bob Glass, knows even less about techie internet stuff than I do, so he came to me for help. I went through several options, and he decided to register a domain with WordPress and set up a blog through that service. The cost is $15 per year, not a bad deal. We found (what I think is) a great domain: (http://bobglassradio.com/) BobGlassRadio.com.

We set up a very simple site with a couple of blog posts. Eventually, Bob plans to upgrade the page, add permanent pages for a bio and links to archives, and so on. But at least we got up and running today.

Though I found the new setting a bit awkward, on the whole WordPress is easy to use. I was surprised that one must first establishe a ".wordpress" blog before registering a domain. But once you do that it's very easy to get the domain (with a PayPal transfer).

In creating blog entries, I was surprised that WordPress had trouble with my hand-coded "A HREF" commands. If there's an option that allows this, I didn't find it. But WordPress has a link button that's pretty easy to use. I guess it's largely what you get used to.

Like anything, tweaking a page will require a certain amount of playing around and trial-and-error. But I got the sense that WordPress can create a web page as robust as the user wants and has time to generate.

The main point is Blogger's favor is that it will transfer content to a third-party hoster at no charge. From what I gather, WordPress charges $10 per year for that. That's not a lot, but it contributes to my resistance to changing. I am glad, though, that there's a good alternative to Blogger out there. Let's hope Blogger doesn't persuade me to use it.

For most new bloggers, though, I'd recommend WordPress over Blogger, especially if you want to host your domain through WordPress as well.

Comment by David, The Machine: It's entirely possible to self-host a Wordpress blog without having to worry about the domain transfer charges. As an example, (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/blog.aynrandcenter.org) Voices For Reason and (http://arc-tv.com/) ARCTV aare both Wordpress blogs hosted independently of the central Wordpress site.

Featured in Money

June 23, 2009

Money magazine features a short write-up about Jennifer and me pertaining to our Health Savings Account. See page 80 of the July issue.

The upshot is that we pay $148 per month for health insurance (for the two of us) for a high-deductible plan, then use our HSA (which is pre-tax money) for all our health care.

I thought this was a good quote from me: "We are thinking all the time about how our behavior is affecting our health. We eat the right foods. We exercise."

And, by the way, I just scheduled a doctor's visit for myself (my wife sees a different doctor in the Fall) and dental visits for both of us.

The photo in the magazine shows us standing on the dam of Ketner Lake (reservoir actually) in Westminster.

Come On, You Homosexual Demon

June 24, 2009

No need to go to uncivilized, pestilence-ridden hovels at the far corners of the earth for crazy. We've got plenty of that right here in the U.S. of A.

Witness for yourself a "gay exorcism;" the attempt to cast a "homosexual demon" out of a teenage boy. The religious scene features a disgusting display of bigoted ignorance.

(It's unclear to me whether the alleged demon in question is itself homosexual, or if it merely causes homosexuality in its purported victim. I suppose a gay demon that also causes gayness would be particularly hard to exorcise.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9v2uk99o2E

Health Policy on the Radio

June 24, 2009

I joined (http://www.rmrnetwork.com/rss/rfa/062309_rfa1.mp3) Bob Glass on his "Radio Free America" show on Tuesday evening. I appear about half way into the (http://www.rmrnetwork.com/rss/rfa/062309_rfa1.mp3) first hour.

To correct a minor mistake: I talked about a swimmer shackled with weights; that example actually came from economist Peter Boettke of George Mason. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5870760.ece) Here's the direct quote:

"If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in a pool and he sank, you wouldn't call it a 'failure of swimming'. So, when markets have been weighted down by inept and excessive regulation, why call this a 'failure of capitalism'?"

We spent much of the first hour talking about why health insurance is so often tied to employment. It has everything to do with federal tax manipulations. The result is that, if you lose your job, you lose your insurance (on such plans). Another result is that a lot of people develop medical conditions, then lose their job-tied insurance and have a hard time buying insurance elsewhere. To a large degree the federal government has destroyed the health insurance market.

I talk a bit about Health Savings Accounts, which allows people to use pre-tax money to pay for routine care and spend less on a high-deductible plan. I suggested that expanding HSAs would be a good reform moving in the direction of free markets.

The article I mentioned by (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) Paul Hsieh, MD, and Lin Zinser, about political meddling in medicine, is available through The Objective Standard. See also the web page for (http://www.westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

In the (http://www.rmrnetwork.com/rss/rfa/062309_rfa2.mp3) second hour, we talked about how Obama is trying to steel the rhetoric of "competition" and apply it to his "public" plan, which is all about imposing force to drive out the legitimate competition of the free market.

We also got more philosophical, talking about why health care is not a right. Bob offered some particularly nice comments on that score. The upshot is that you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not to goods and services produced by others. A legitimate right does not entail any claim on the resources of others, nor does it permit the use of force to confiscate the wealth or labor of others.

Near the end we talked about Obama's claims that, under his plan, you'll continue to be able to choose your own doctors. I said, "That's like choosing your own bread line in the Soviet Union... You might be free to choose Doctor A or Doctor B. But what's going to happen with the political takeover of medicine is that the best doctors are simply going to leave the field. The best students are not going to go into medicine. We're going to be left with the people willing to kiss the backsides of Washington DC bureaucrats. Is that the kind of doctor you want taking care of your health?"

Reject Political Control of Health Care

June 24, 2009

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090624/COLUMNISTS/906239978/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) appeared in the June 24, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Reject political control of health care

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Medical decisions can be made by voluntary agreements among patients, doctors, and insurers. Or they can be made by politicians and their appointed bureaucrats. President Obama hopes for more of the latter.

While details remain sketchy, the centerpiece of Obama's plan is a "public" option, meaning that taxpayers would subsidize more health care, probably amounting to well over a (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg) trillion dollars over the coming decade.

Calling these forced wealth transfers "public" is misleading. Generally hospitals, doctors' offices, and insurance plans are already open to the public. Any member of the public is welcome to ask for these services and pay for them. But in Obamaland "public" means something different: it means that some members of the public can force other members of the public to help pay for their health care.

Recently Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/politics/12obama.html) said that his "public" plan would "ensure coverage for people where the free market system fails." He said, "We've got to admit that the free market has not worked perfectly when it comes to health care."

The reason that the "free market has not worked perfectly" is that there is no free market in health care, nor has there been one for many decades, Obama's magnificent lie notwithstanding. The problems with American medicine arise from decades of political interference in medicine—so of course Obama wants to expand such interference.

Between Medicare, Medicaid, and other tax-funded programs, government spends nearly half of all health-care dollars. In addition to driving up federal spending and threatening financial catastrophe in coming years, such programs increase health costs for everyone else by loading down doctors with paperwork and red tape, underpaying doctors, and artificially increasing the services demanded.

The federal government has entrenched employer-paid insurance through tax policy. Lose your job, lose your insurance. This especially screws people who develop medical conditions and then lose their jobs. Because of the tax incentives, such insurance also encourages people to run everything through insurance, which again drives up prices by increasing paperwork and decreasing the incentive to monitor costs. It would be like buying auto insurance that covers oil changes and tire rotations.

Among the many other political controls of medicine, both state and federal governments impose all kinds of insurance mandates, driving up insurance premiums and pricing many out of the market.

So, now that federal politicians have completely screwed up the private insurance market, they want to provide tax-funded insurance. How generous.

But Team Obama is clever. In further destroying the free market in medicine, Obama nevertheless adopts the rhetoric of capitalism. He (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/politics/12obama.html) said, "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and it will help keep their prices down."

In the context of a free market, open competition indeed encourages companies to remain innovative and cost-conscious. But we are not talking about a free market here. We are talking about the federal government essentially knee-capping private insurance companies and then forcing people to pay protection money to finance the political plan. It is the "competition" of gangsters.

Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/politics/12obama.html) dismisses as irrational "fear, that somehow once you have a public plan that government will take over the entire health care system."

Really? The logic behind the plan is to punish private insurance providers and tax-subsidize the "competition." Such a plan is just a back-door approach to eventually establishing "single-payer," meaning the federal government assumes responsibility for most medical payments. And he who pays the piper calls the tune. What the federal government finances, the federal government controls.

If you think we're stretching, watch the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E) video, "The Public Plan Deception—It's Not About Choice." In the past Obama professed support for single-payer. Earlier this year Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky said she agrees that "the public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer."

We agree that insurance companies play too great a role in our health decisions and fail to offer the best kinds of insurance. Again, this is strictly a result of federal interference in insurance, and the solution is to get politicians out of the insurance industry, not let them take it over completely.

Obama has also been clever in tying the political takeover of health financing to tort reform. Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/15/obama-urges-doctors-support-healh-care-overhaul-calls-ticking-bomb/) told doctors that, if they get on board, he will do something about "excessive defensive medicine," referring to the insane and unjust law suits often brought against doctors that raise costs for the rest of us.

But if the legal system needs reform—and we agree it does—that should be done for its own sake, not used as a club to force doctors into compliance.

Political interference in medicine caused the problems. You're crazy if you think more of the same will solve those problems. And you're putting the health, finances, and liberty of the rest of us at grave risk.

Save Justin's Health Insurance!

June 25, 2009

Save Justin's health insurance! The crew of the Independence Institute have produced a great, short video explaining one key problem with political controls of health insurance: they can outlaw low-cost, high-deductible insurance (such as my wife and I enjoy). Nice job, guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWIW3ueUjSo

What If God Disappeared?

June 26, 2009

When I watched the first few seconds of this video some weeks ago, I didn't appreciate it. But now that I've watched it completely through…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4

Comment by Clay: As a satire it almost doesn't go far enough. Until it got to the natural disaster part I wasn't sure what I was watching, even after that I followed the link to myspace just to make sure. It could have just been a particularly stupid religious person.

Comment by Ryan O.: I disagree; it is excellent satire. It is quite subtle at first, but becomes increasingly cheeky throughout. Unless one is familiar with the typical apologetics and evangelical arguments, though, it is harder to understand. As a recovering christian, I can appreciate this brilliant satire in full. Also, it is Mr. Current's most subtle, most clever and therefore best work.

Comment by Clay: I'm also a recovering Christian. I know and understand the arguments quite well. Well enough to understand that any or all of them have actually been made. I never said that it was other than excellent satire, I do believe that it is. It would be much less effective if you didn't get a decent portion of the way through it before wondering where it is was going. If you knew it was satire from the beginning it would be much less funny. Really... imo there are only a few clear giveaways in the whole thing and fundamentalist christians have even made those arguments. The increasing cheekiness is one of them. Followed by the storms hit bad people argument(which has definitely been made.. see Pat Robertson) and several other more cheeky, but less goofy(though still wrong) arguments(such as the sex w/ puppies line).

Comment by revereridesagain: Hilarious sarcastic satire. I can just imagine the "huh? waitaminute..." reaction of any mainline Christian who wanders in there by accident. The fundamentalists, on the other hand, will probably nod like bobbleheads through the whole thing. I particularly loved the line about "empty and hopeless and desperate inside—like atheists feel today". As any of who spend too much time on "conservative" sites know, that is exactly what many of the religious believe --and it frustrates and irritates them to encounter atheists who do not match their comforting fantasy. RRA

Electricity Rates Would Skyrocket

June 29, 2009

Listen to Barack Obama explain, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (Via Joshua Sharf.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Definition of a Nitwitter

June 30, 2009

My first (http://twitter.com/ariarmstrong) Twitter post is dated June 19, 2009. I had once sworn never to join Twitter. But I love it. For my purposes, it works fantastically. (I basically use it as a news feed.) But the tool is only as good as its users. I've seen plenty of Twitter nonsense as well.

I knew somebody out there must have come up with a definition of a "nitwitter." I (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nitwitter) was right:

A person who discusses their twitting frequently and enthusiastically, causing irritation.

Person A: Did you read my tweets this morning? They were so funny!

Person B: Get lost, nitwitter.

I'd like to add two more definitions:

2. nitwitter: a user of Twitter who writes hopelessly incomprehensible Twitter posts. (I know 140 characters isn't much, but if you can't write a post that other people can actually understand, why bother?)

3. nitwitter: a user of Twitter who follows more people than he or she can possibly read, for the purpose of attracting more followers, who in turn neglect to read the first person's Twitter posts.

Don't be a nitwitter! In any of the three senses.

Still, I love it. Go to Twitter and (http://twitter.com/ariarmstrong) follow me!

Clear the Censorship

June 30, 2009

I am utterly astounded that so many Colorado "conservatives" endorse censorship. Let's get this straight, friends: if you endorse censorship, you are an enemy of liberty. This is just not a negotiable issue.

Amendment 54, a campaign censorship law passed by (bare) majority last year, thankfully has been suspended by a Denver court. This is not a surprise, given the measure violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and contradicts Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, which states:

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.

This is hardly ambiguous text.

I was therefore surprised to read an (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/06/26/dont-let-unjust-justices-make-colorado-puppies-sad/) article at Clear the Bench Colorado endorsing Amendment 54. The article reminds us that the measure "passed by a vote of the citizens of Colorado." So what? Since when do Republicans endorse pure democracy? The entire point of constitutional government is to protect individual rights from mob rule.

Here is the central argument from Clear the Bench:

Once again, a judge has acted on the behalf of special interest groups intent on "gaining favor and contracts from public officials" through political contributions—"probably triggering a flood of campaign contributions" from those seeking to curry favor while the 'temporary injunction' remains in effect.

The same argument could apply to McCain-Feingold. Does Clear the Bench also endorse the federal censorship law and decry the Supreme Court's limitation of it?

The purpose of Amendment 54 (now part of Article 28 of the Colorado Constitution) is to prevent recipients of no-bid government contracts from contributing to campaigns. The reasoning behind the restriction is obvious enough: people who benefit from tax dollars ought not influence the spending of those tax dollars. But while that reasoning points to a legitimate problem, it does not justify censorship.

With governments at all levels spending so much money through forced wealth transfers—about (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&units=p&title=Spending%20as%20percent%20of%20GDP) 45 percent of the total economy—political pull is just the way things operate. The only real way to solve that problem is to cut government spending and restore a free market. Until that happens, campaign censorship laws only further violate our rights without addressing the fundamental problem.

At a less fundamental level, if there is a problem particularly with no-bid contracts, then the solution is to restrict or eliminate no-bid contracts (and open contracts to bidding).

If we were to extend the argument that people who receive government funds should be censored, that would apply also to every student who takes government-backed loans, every senior citizen who accepts Social Security or Medicare, every employee and contractor of the government, and so on. In other words, given today's mixed economy and high rate of government spending, the logical conclusion of Amendment 54 is near-universal censorship.

(http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/2008EnglishVersionforInternet.pdf) Amendment 54 is shockingly broad; its limitations extend far beyond any direct connection between a no-bid contract and related taxes. Consider the details:

* Amendment 54 prevents contractors, "for the duration of the contract and for two years thereafter," from contributing to any political party or state or local candidate. There need be absolutely no connection between the political race and the contract.

* A contractor cannot "induce by any means" a campaign contribution "on behalf of his or her immediate family member." An "immediate family member" is defined as "any spouse, child, spouse's child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, stepbrother, stepsister, stepparent, parent-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt, niece, nephew, guardian, or domestic partner." In other words, a contractor cannot seek to persuade these people that they ought to financially support any candidate. To be enforced, the measure requires thought police.

* The measure also prohibits campaigns from "intentionally" accepting funds proscribed by the measure. What is "intentional?" How is that proved? What this does is allow big-moneyed interests to go after candidates they don't like, discouraging potential candidates who can't afford a team of lawyers from running.

Amendment 54 is bad law. It is unjust law. It is unconstitutional law. It deserves to be thrown out.

Conservatives need to learn that the opposite of "judicial activism" is not mob rule. Judges play a legitimate role in protecting the rights of the individual from the whims of the majority.

It is a shame that Clear the Bench, which has undertaken a good and noble cause in advocating courts that uphold the rule of law, has muddied the waters by endorsing censorship. Let's hope that organization and conservatives more broadly correct that failing.

Aurora Republicans Host Top Candidates

July 1, 2009

Micah Marmaro, president of the Aurora Republican Forum, did an outstanding job gathering top Republican candidates and elected officials at a barbeque June 27 at General's Park. Here I'll review what they had to say—which in some cases was surprisingly little. (I, on the other hand, said too much, but I'll review my talk in a subsequent post.) I'll intersperse my comments with related photographs.

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3672921780/

While I have previously criticized Congressman Mike Coffman on grounds of (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/01/around-colorado-12909/) economic and (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado-republicans/) personal freedom, Coffman gave by far the best speech at the Aurora event.

Coffman, who served in Iraq, offered an overview of the situation there. He said, "I think there's going to be an uptick in violence as we pull out of the urban areas." He added, "I'm confident we can stay on schedule" with a "phased withdrawal." He worried that President Obama is "not committing adequate resources to the war" in Afghanistan, risking unnecessary casualties. He also complained about Democratic pressure to "reduce funding for missile defense."

Coffman attacked directly the Democratic argument that "cap-and-trade" energy restrictions will help the U.S. become energy independent. "The fact is that we're dependent on imported oil because they've done everything they can to block our ability to do energy development, to do drilling of natural gas and oil," Coffman said.

What cap-and-trade "will do," Coffman continued, "is it will drive up the cost of energy. What it will do is drive jobs outside the United States... What manufacturing base we have left in America will push over to China."

Coffman said the political pace in Washington, DC, "has been incredible" because "this president has an agenda that is very aggressive... It is not a president of the general election, it is a president of the primary. He is a liberal through and through... This is far-left stuff."

Coffman said that the rapid pace of legislation is cutting short Congressional debate as well as public scrutiny, "so right behind cap-and-trade... we will be debating health care reform, and right on the heels of that we'll be debating immigration reform" (where I imagine I align closer with Obama's policies than with Coffman's, given that I support an employer's right to hire willing workers). Coffman also said he expects to see another move to push "card check," empowering unions by wiping out secret ballots for unionization.

However, given the close vote for cap-and-trade, Coffman said "I think it will have a difficult time in the Senate."

Coffman complained also that the $787 billion "stimulus" bill got minimal Congressional review before passage.

On health care, Coffman called the "public option" a "bait and switch for socialized medicine," a "single-payer system" that "will continue to drive the deficit."

Coffman said, "We have a deficit this year of $1.7 trillion. We will have a deficit for as far as I can see, at about a trillion dollars and rising. That's unsustainable... It got so bad that the Chinese publicly stated that they were worried about the U.S economy" in terms of inflation and interest rates.

Answering a question, Coffman said, "It's truly a European-style welfare state that this president and Congressional leadership are seeing." He noted that various Europeans are trying to get of such systems.

Coffman said 2010 will be a referendum "that will define the direction of America. It will define whether or not we are a European-style welfare state. It will define whether America is simply a country of large labor organizations, big business like Chrysler and GM where government has a stake in them or ownership in them—big government, big business, and big labor. Or are we a country based on individual rights and responsibility, and anybody being able to start a small business with that entrepreneurial effort."

I also respected Coffman's answer regarding bringing military jobs to Colorado: "I like the fact that defense dollars come to Colorado, as long as we're competitive for those defense dollars. I will not lift a finger to compromise the ability of our military by forcing them into Colorado. And so what I want to do... is make sure... that they have the right tools to succeed in Colorado."

Concluding, Coffman said the central choice is "whether we have a free market economy or whether we have an economy that's managed by the government for its own interests."

All day (aside from my speech), Coffman's discussion of individual rights and a free market economy was the clearest expression of a guiding political philosophy.

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3672923130/

Shown above from left to right: Mike Morison (volunteer with Bob LeGare), Adam Eidelberg (volunteer for Dan Makes and Bruce Peterson), Andrew Goad (candidate for state house district 32), and Brian Cambell (candidate for the Seventh Congressional). (Thanks also to Micah for filling in some of these names.)

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3672116567/

Bruce Peterson is running for Arapahoe county commissioner.

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3672117685/

Loraine Buck, Ken Buck (candidate for U.S. Senate), and Micah Marmaro.

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3672118691/

Check back—more to come!

Support Clear the Bench

July 2, 2009

A couple days ago I gave (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/) Clear the Bench Colorado a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/06/clear-censorship.html) little hell for defending Amendment 54. I want to emphasize here that this is a minor disagreement with the organization (as the issue, while important, is only tangentially related to its activities), and I support Clear the Bench.

Moreover, I recognize that Matt Arnold took on the project on his own initiative, and he is preparing to work doggedly on this issue for many months. He faces a difficult and often thankless uphill battle.

We have the ability in Colorado to vote for judges' retention. Next year four of Colorado's Supreme Court justices face a retention vote. Because of their prejudicial decisions, they deserve to be thrown off the court by Colorado voters. Clear the Bench is working to educate voters in order to make that happen. If you support judicial integrity, support Clear the Bench.

(Also, while I'm praising organizations, I'll point out that the Independence Institute hosted the wonderfully inspiring Daniel Hannan and posted his (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=431AEA61EB4B9F67) talk in four parts. Hannan, an English parliamentarian, sounds more like an American than most American politicians.)

July 4 Tea Party Arvada Colorado

July 5, 2009

I interviewed a number of participants of the July 4 Tea Party in Arvada, Colorado. Hear what they have to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfTDpC6DLD8

Jon Caldara gave the keynote speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoSo03ixUe0

Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado outlined his case for voting against retention of four Colorado Supreme Court Justices:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEyqpgXejms

Here are a few additional photos:

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3694700190

Flickr link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3694699142/

Flickr link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3694698192/

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3694697190/

See also reports for (http://www.rockymountainright.com/?q=node/887) Castle Rock and (http://www.cspringsteaparty.com/Video/Video.html) Colorado Springs. Please send in information about other July 4 Tea Parties across Colorado!

Commentary

I've heard estimates of a thousand participants. I imagine attendance was lower than at the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-tea-party-ralliers-in-their-own.html) Tax Day Tea Party because more people were at local events and many were busy with family gatherings.

It was a fun time. I helped hand out a couple hundred Ayn Rand Samplers and a few hundred "Clear the Bench" flyers.

The most troubling aspect of the event is that various speakers really laid on the religion. It was almost as much of a church service as a political rally. I heard quite a lot of the same crazy talk that (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/10/faith-based-politics-costs-colorado.html) cost Republicans control of government in the first place. While we heard from Jefferson's Declaration, we heard nothing about Jefferson's (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html) wall of separation between church and state. But religious tyranny is hardly an improvement upon leftist tyranny. For example, those who endorse the "personhood" measure next year are as much the enemy of liberty as are those who advocate socialized medicine, for (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) reasons stated.

Yet some of the speeches were great; see Jon Caldara's speech above. And the people who attended went for their own reasons. One lady told me she was "pro-life" (i.e., an advocate of abortion bans), and at least two people carried signs proclaiming that America is a Christian nation. Yet most people I talked with were there for the obvious reasons: federal politicians are spending our money like drunken sailors and seizing control of broad swaths of the economy.

The right obviously still suffers from the schism that resulted in its downfall; it is torn between those who would impose their sectarian dogmas by force of law and those who advocate individual rights and a government devoted to protecting those rights. That intellectual battle continues to rage.

Yet I see many signs that more and more citizens are taking up the banner of individual rights.

Politicians Caused Mortgage Meltdown

July 6, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090706/OPINION/907059995/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published July 6, 2009, by the Grand Junction Free Press.

Politicians caused mortgage meltdown

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

If you want to know the basics of how politicians caused the mortgage meltdown and the resulting recession, purchase and read Thomas Sowell's new book, The Housing Boom and Bust. In just 148 pages of text (plus notes and such), Sowell explains how political economic controls largely started in the 1970s gained force in the 1990s, initiating the housing bubble in the early 2000s and resulting in the bust of 2006.

Sowell begins his account with the 1970s, when various localities around the U.S.—particularly in New York and coastal California—imposed wide-ranging property controls that restricted building and sent housing prices through the roof.

Through such controls as government open space, zoning, "smart" growth, lot size controls, building height restrictions, preservation restrictions, building permit hassles and limits, and planning commissions, various localities forced up housing costs. Meanwhile, housing remained affordable where local governments left it relatively free.

The politically induced pain created the "misconception... that the free market failed to produce affordable housing, and that government intervention was therefore necessary... to enable ordinary people to find a place to live that was within their means," Sowell writes.

Enter the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The legislation directed federal bureaucrats to "encourage" banks "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered." Over time, this developed into federal policies to cajole and threaten banks into making risky loans.

Starting in the 1990s, activists such as ACORN (and, as reported elsewhere, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/06/sotomayor-contributed-to-mortgage.html) Sonia Sotomayor), media outlets such as the New York Times, and politicians from George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton pressured banks to make riskier loans, on the pretext of helping some minority applicants. (As Sowell points out, minorities were hurt worst in the resulting housing bust.)

Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's Attorney General, warned banks, "Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking."

In 1993, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought legal action against banks that failed to meet racial quotas in lending. In 1995, new controls under CRA imposed more stringent quotas. Nevermind whether the recipients of the risky loans were prepared to repay them.

In addition to legal action and threats thereof, bureaucrats threatened banks' ability to form mergers and branches unless they followed politically-correct lending practices, Sowell reviews.

Also during the 1990s, the politician-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began lowering lending requirements, partly under pressure from HUD. These quasi-governmental entities purchased risky loans originated by others. Other investors rightly predicted that the federal government would not allow these organizations to bear the brunt of their irresponsible policies; they were later bailed out with tax dollars.

In 2002, George W. Bush advocated subsidies for down payments and zero-down loans. The Federal Housing Administration also promoted zero-down loans. Yet Bush's American Dream Downpayment Act and aligned measures helped create a financial nightmare.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve artificially held down interest rates in the early 2000s, encouraging many to buy houses who could not otherwise afford them.

The net effect of all these political controls was to encourage "creative" lending policies, causing an explosion of adjustable-rate and zero-down mortgages, Sowell reviews. When interest rates crept back up in 2004, the houses of cards began to crumble.

Particularly telling is the political reaction to the mortgage meltdown. Many of the same politicians and activists who previously encouraged risky lending quickly turned to blaming the "greed" of the free market. These quotes alone are worth the price of Sowell's book.

For example, in 2003, Congressman Barney Frank said, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping making housing more affordable." In 2007 Frank blamed the mortgage meltdown on "too little regulation." In 2008 Frank blamed "a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." So Frank first helped destroy the free market, then blamed the market for not working.

In 2004, Republican Senator Kit Bond threatened to cut the budget of an agency that raised alarms about Freddie and Fannie. Later, Bond complained that the same agency had failed to "look at the practices" of Freddie and Fannie.

In 2004, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Freddie and Fannie as "one of the great success stories of all time." In 2007, Dodd blamed others for the "adjustable-rate mortgages that today are defaulting and going into foreclosure at record rates."

In 2003, Congresswoman Maxine Waters said "we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac" or Fannie Mae and advocated "affordable housing" through "desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans." In 2004, 76 House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, urged President Bush to sacrifice "an exclusive focus on safety and soundness" on the alter of "affordable housing."

Now that they have devastated the housing market and caused the worst recession since the Great Depression, these are the same clowns who want to seize control of energy and health care.

Don't let them get away with it again.

Love in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

July 9, 2009

When I first read J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, it struck me as a "bridge" book—a crossover between the fantastic fifth book and the finale of the series. I enjoyed it, but it was by no means my favorite. But, once I started digging a little deeper into it, I discovered that the sixth novel offers the riches of human relationships. Of course it also reveals the tragic background of Voldemort's family (without making that an excuse for Voldermort's horrific actions).

I spent much of Wednesday looking through my notes of the novel and writing an essay about its central theme, which is, simply and profoundly, love. Here is the opening paragraph:

J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, soon to be released as a blockbuster movie, is often a grim and frightening book, filled with episodes of murder and mayhem. From Dumbledore, Harry learns the secrets of Lord Voldemort's dark past. And yet, despite all the suffering and the rise of evil, the strongest theme of the book is love. Love for family and friends. Romantic love. It is in contrast with Voldemort's loveless and despicable life that the value of love shines through the story.

Read the entire (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/lovehalfbloodprince.html) new essay on love in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince over at ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.

'Personhood' Returns for 2010

July 10, 2009

Last year, the religious right ran Amendment 48 in Colorado to define a fertilized egg as a person, with full legal rights on par with born infants. The (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) "personhood" measure would have paved the way to banning abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, health risks, and fetal deformity, perhaps excepting extreme risk to the woman's life. If enforced, it would have led to bans on certain forms of birth control and severe restrictions on fertility treatments. It would have prompted criminal prosecution of abortions and criminal investigations of suspect miscarriages.

Voters (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious.html) crushed the measure 73 to 27 percent. So, after such a resounding defeat, the measure's backers learned their lesson, right? Of course not. They're back with a new—and even worse—proposal for 2010.

Mark Barna (http://www.gazette.com/articles/personhood-57580-colorado-jones.html) reports for the June 29 Gazette, "Two anti-abortion groups, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, will submit a new 'personhood' initiative to the Colorado Legislative Council on Thursday in hopes of getting a measure on the 2010 state ballot." Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado promises a "smarter," better-funded campaign with better spokespersons.

But there will be an important change. Barna writes:

Rather than defining a person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization," the new initiative will establish personhood in "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

"The change," Garcia [Jones] said, "doesn't leave any loopholes to artificial forms of reproduction such as cloning."

See also coverage in the (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=4742) Denver Daily News (in which we learn that Garcia Jones is Catholic—big surprise there) and the (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12741854) Denver Post.

Tim Hoover of the Post doesn't mention the cloning issue. Instead, he writes:

"When we use 'fertilized egg,' it's a pejorative," said Keith Mason, director of Personhood USA, an Arvada-based organization supporting the measure and similar proposals across the country. ...

The amendment would say that "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

So what is "the beginning of the biological development of that human being"? That would be up to courts to decide, said Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado.

How is calling a "fertilized egg" a "fertilized egg" a pejorative? Mason's claim is ridiculous. So I'll offer a different explanation. I think that the main reason supporters of the measure dumped the language about "fertilization" is that it draws to voters' attention all too clearly the goals of the organization: to ban all abortion and any other action that might harm a fertilized egg, on the faith-based fantasy that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul.

By substituting "human being" for "fertilized egg," supporters of the measure hope to cloud the issue in sufficient ambiguity to trip up more voters.

Of course, the ultimate goal of the measure's supporters—as they loudly proclaim—is to eventually elect the "right" politicians, who will appoint the "right" judges," who will interpret the measure so as to declare a fertilized egg a "human being," with all the legal ramifications that that entails.

Note the shift in Garcia Jones's tone from the Gazette article to the one in the Post. He told the Gazette that the purpose of the new language was to make it even more restrictive: to extend it beyond fertilization to cloning. But by the time he spoke with Hoover, he said the courts will decide. One might get the feeling that Garcia Jones rethought his strategy of informing voters that he intends the new measure to apply to all fertilized eggs.

So what are we to make of this new language about a "human being?" As Diana Hsieh and I wrote in our paper on Amendment 48:

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.

Of course, a fertilized egg, unlike a gallbladder, has the capacity, in the right environment, to develop into a born infant, a person. But a potential person is not an actual person, a distinction consistently dodged by advocates of abortion bans.

The problem with the new measure's language is that it relies on voters to decide for themselves what is a "human being." Is it a fertilized egg, a "viable" fetus, or a born infant? It's for the courts to decide, we are told. Then why do the measure's advocates leave the language intentionally ambiguous?

Obviously, if we take "human being" as synonymous with "person," then the measure is merely tautological. But clearly the goal of the measure's supporters is to define a fertilized egg—and now a cloned zygote—as a "person." The strategy is to make a rhetorical leap without bothering to show that a fertilized egg is, in fact, a person. Maybe that's because there is no argument demonstrating that a fertilized egg is a person, because it isn't.

Notably, not a single advocate of Amendment 48 even attempted to seriously address the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf) arguments in the paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg is Not a Person." Thus, I do not need to recapitulate those arguments here, when readers can peruse the original for themselves.

For the advocates of abortion bans, this is not about proving that a fertilized egg is a person. This is about trying to obscure the issue and impose non-objective law in order to enforce the beliefs of sectarian faith.

Comment by Katrina: And the fight begins anew! Thanks to you and Diana for all your hard work defeating the last crazy measure. Shouldn't you post this on freecolorado as well?

Comment by Nulono: "Fertilized egg" is an oxymoron because there is no egg after fertilization, but a zygote. The .pdf linked does not say why the unborn are not persons and just says that it would be less convenient if they were.

Comment by Nulono: If you want an argument that a zygote is a person, here's one. Read this and keep in mind that I am both an atheist and a communist. 1. We know it is alive because it is metabolizing food into energy.
2. We know it is human because it has human parents.
3. There are only 4 differences between it and any other human being.
3a. Obviously, the zygote is smaller than an adult or newborn. Does how big you are determine your value? Is Shaquille O'Neil more valuable than Hillary Clinton? Are dwarfs less valuable? As Dr. Seuss wrote in Horton Hears a Who, "A person's a person no matter how small". Or, if you prefer Yoda, "Size matters not, ... Look at me. Judge me by size, do you?".
3b. The zygote is less developed. Is a premature baby less valuable than a toddler? If a 16-year-old has a fully developed reproductive system, is she more valuable than a 6-year-old?
3c. The zygote is inside the mother's body (or in a petri dish). Does where you are determine who you are? I'm sure you would agree a premature baby shouldn't be killed. Does a trip of a few inches really cause some sort of metaphysical change? Would I lose my rights if I stood on a petri dish? Peter Singer recognizes this, but he instead is pro-infanticide.
3d. The zygote is dependent upon the mother to survive. If this mattered, I could go into any hospital and shoot anyone on a pacemaker, respirator, IV, feeding tube, or life support. If this were true, teenagers would become more valuable once they get their driver's license.
4. In the long, sad history of the human race, we have discriminated against human beings because of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Now we are discriminating based on level of development, environment, degree of dependency, and size.

Comment by Ari: Nulono, Though you set up a knock down a variety of straw men, you utterly neglect the central argument: a zygote or embryo is completely contained within the body of a woman. This is not merely a matter of physical location, as you suggest, but of a fundamental biological relationship between two living entities. In addition to this, a zygote is not a person due simply to its lack of development. By contrast, a newborn and a 16-year-old have developed human organs. Also, I used "fertilized egg" to indicate that the advocates of the "personhood" measure want to protect zygotes from the moment of fertilization. Notably, this precedes implantation in the uterus. I suppose I could use "pre-uteral zygote" instead, but I think "fertilized egg" is more widely understood.

Comment by Ari: I have declined to publish Nulono's additional comments, which add no further substance to the discussion. However, I do think it worth pointing out that Nulono is wrong in claiming, "After implantation, the zygote is an embryo..." According to (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112) Mayo, "The sperm and egg unite in one of your fallopian tubes to form a one-celled entity called a zygote. ... Soon after fertilization, the zygote travels down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. At the same time, it will begin dividing rapidly to form a cluster of cells resembling a tiny raspberry. The inner group of cells will become the embryo. The outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it." About a week after fertilization, Mayo continues, the zygote implants in the uterus. Then, "the third week after conception, marks the beginning of the embryonic period. This is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form." However, as Northwestern's biochemical department (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-E/embryo.html) points out, the precise meaning of the term "embryo" varies with usage, and it has evolved over time: "A fertilized egg that has begun cell division, often called a pre-embryo (for pre-implantation embryo). An embryo is now defined as a later stage, i.e. at the completion of" the pre-embryonic stage, which is considered to end at about day 14. The term, embryo, is used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy." The upshot is that "zygote" is simply not specific enough in the context of the "personhood" debate. We are talking about a zygote prior to implantation, which may also be called an embryo in the broader sense. Advocates of the "personhood" measure wish to protect zygotes from the moment of fertilization, so again I cannot think of a simpler term for this than "fertilized egg." I could also say "zygote from the moment of fertilization" or "pre-embryo from the moment of fertilization."

Comment by Ari: I changed my mind and decided to publish Nulono's complete comments: "After implantation, the zygote is an embryo, and after cell divisions the zygote becomes a morula, blastocyst, et cetera. "I you fail to posit a reason why a human being's level of development or degree of dependency makes he or she less valuable."

Comment by Ari: Nulono wonders "why a human being's level of development or degree of dependency makes he or she less valuable." First I would point out that Nulono is presuming here that a "human being" is formed with the fertilization of an egg. Yet, as Diana Hsieh and I point out in our paper—http://bit.ly/UJeF5—this presumption relies on an equivocation. A zygote is human in that it contains human DNA, and it is a "being" in the sense of an entity. But it is not a "human being" in the sense of a person, and that is what the entire debate is about. Nulono also seems to rely here on an intrinsic theory of value. Nothing is valuable to the universe as a whole; things are of value only to living entities. A living being's life is valuable to itself, and often to many other living beings. But this has nothing to do with whether a living being is a person.

Dr. Schroeder Replies to Grand Junction Model

July 12, 2009

(http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090710/COLUMNISTS/907099981/1062/NONE&parentprofile=1062) Dr. James Schroeder wrote an important article for Friday's Free Press of Grand Junction. He responds to media hype about the "Grand Junction Model" for health reform.

[A] large study done at Dartmouth University looking at variations in Medicare spending was released in April 2008.... The Dartmouth Atlas is being overstated. ... All the data showed is that some hospitals spent more than others. ... The death rate in this particular study was 100 percent. ... The only logical conclusion to be made is that Grand Junction is efficient at getting people to the point of death.

Hang on to your wallet, because the Dartmouth Atlas will now be touted as showing that some regions (Grand Junction being the shining example) are "more efficient" at delivering health care while saving money! This in turn will serve as the anvil upon which health care spending throughout the country will be hammered into line by a federally controlled health care system. ...

The current administration advocates a system that will take those difficult value judgments out of your hands and put them in the hands of a nice, caring, compassionate bureaucrat. ... The (barely) unspoken message is that you have a duty to die cheaply in order to save money for everybody else. ...

Please read the entire article for yourself.

I have but a couple of nits to pick. Schroeder writes, "Health care services are finite, just like any other commodity. At its core, the entire health care debate boils down to distributing a finite number of dollars for the purchase of health care services for a diverse population of 300 million. The only way to do that is by allocating expenditures and resources, or in other words rationing."

That paragraph is wrong for two reasons. First, while the availability of doctors, hospitals, drugs, etc. at any given time is limited, the amount of health care services can change dramatically over time. Today vastly more health care is available than was the case a century ago. One of the effects of socialized medicine would be to reduce the amount and quality of health care available, particularly as the better doctors left the field and the better students looked for careers elsewhere.

Second, "rationing" pertains only to political distribution of goods or services. For example, if you walk into a grocery store and purchase hamburger instead of steak, that's not "rationing;" that's a rational response to prices. If you choose to go to an urgent care office rather than an emergency room, that's not "rationing" the emergency care. A free market involves willing agreements among buyers and sellers, consumers and producers. That's not rationing. Rationing is when politicians and bureaucrats decide who gets what, and how much they get.

A free market in health care involves no rationing. The partly-socialized medicine we live under today involves considerable rationing. A completely socialized system involves nothing but rationing.

Comment by Schroeder: Mr. Armstrong, Thanks for the link.
To expand on my use of the term rationing, I recognize the general common usage as implying governmental imposition of restrictions. I was using a different sense of the word to make my point. Webster's defines a ration as "share especially as determined by supply", (which implies some entity determines the share). Webster's has three definitions of the verb form of ration, the third of which is "to use sparingly". The sense I was going for was to make the distinction that with a finite resource, the question boils down to who is making the decision of "fair share" (or ration), whose resources are used to purchase the resource, and who makes the decision (or rations) how to use the resource sparingly. Another way of saying this would be to use the phrase "allocation of resources" and distinguish between "self-allocation" and allocation decision made by a third-party (i.e. government). Largely a semantic argument, but I find that using a twist on a commonly-used phrase sometimes makes the reader re-consider the meanings.
Thanks again. Jim Schroeder

Forty-Nine Reasons to Vote Ritter Out

July 13, 2009

On May 30, 2008, my vehicle registration cost $37.17. On July 13, 2009, my vehicle registration cost $86.48.

That's about a $49 difference. For me, that's forty-nine reasons to vote Bill Ritter out of office. State politicians are doing everything they can to squeeze residents at the exact time when many residents are suffering from the recession (my wife took a ten percent pay cut, for example).

And I drive a cheap clunker; most people will find that they have many more reasons to vote against Ritter.

I also had to pay $30 to the City and County of Denver for expired tags, but obviously I won't hold that against Ritter. (My only satisfaction in the matter was writing "Legalized Theft" in the "For" line of the check.) The reason my tags expired is that the DMV sent my notification form to my old address, so obviously I never got it. (My wife thinks we sent in change of address forms.) I didn't notice that the month tag was out of date, but the meter maid sure noticed. Because, you know, it's not enough that I pay taxes to pave Denver's roads or feed quarters into Denver's meters.

I should note that the registration fee seems to have covered an extra two months to cover the expiration, but still, that's a hefty "fee" increase.

Tomorrow I have to take my wife's car in for the same reason, and then I suspect I'll have about another hundred reasons to hate Ritter and his Democratic party. [Update: to my pleasant surprise, the tax on our second car actually went down substantially, apparently because the car hit its tenth year.]

Of course, my whole plan of helping to vote Ritter out of office depends upon Republicans running a candidate who's not even worse than Ritter, which was the problem last time around.

Comment by Anonymous: I agree that Gov't is too good at stealing additional dollars fron citizens simply by arbitrarilly raising taxes, surcharges(taxes) and fees(more taxes). They should be required to make budget cuts just like private folk when revenues go down. That being said, it is still your fault that you let your tags expire. You preach personal responsibility in most matters. This is one of those matters. Maybe later we can talk about whether yearly taxes in the form of registration and licensing fees are a just form of revenue generation or just another form of Gov't theft.

Comment by Ari: True enough, because the DMV failed to update our address when we sent in the form, I failed to facilitate the timely theft of our resources. My bad.

Twelve Bovine Livers

July 14, 2009

My grandfather farmed peaches in Palisade. I spent many an hour shoveling cow manure, planting and watering trees, and so on. I guess I still have a bit of farmer in me.

Jennifer and I figure we've dried nearly 100 pounds of fruit so far this summer. We got 67 cent per pound apricots, $1.34 per pound cherries, mangos at Costco, and strawberries for 88 cents to a dollar per pound. Now we have outstanding dried fruit to eat through the winter. We're still looking forward to peaches and tomatoes.

This evening we ate the first tomato from our garden. It was small, but very sweet.

And I cooked twelve grass-fed cow livers, chopped them up, and froze them in portions to add to dishes. I thought it would make a fun song:

In the middle of summer,
my true love made for me
Twelve bovine livers
Eleven pounds of berries
Ten trays of mangos...
Five red cherries...
And a tomato from the back yard.

With the liver, I was inspired by Jessica Seinfeld's book on pureeing vegetables and adding them to various dishes. I've taken to pureeing broccoli, spinach, cauliflower, and so on, then freezing portions in baggies. Then I just dump a bag or two of puree into any random dish. I decided to try this with liver as well, as It turns out that Jennifer is no fan of liver and onions.

I bought this liver based on two dietary theories. The first is that grass-fed cows offer more nutrients than junk-fed cows. The second is that organ meats contain higher amounts of certain vitamins such as (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/01/vitamin-k2-and-cranial-development.html) K2. (Besides, grass-fed cow liver is pretty cheap, so at worst I'm getting a modest-cost dish add-in. By the way, (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/beef-products/3469/2) NutritionData.com shows that cow liver has low Vitamin K but high amounts of other vitamins like A and B12. I'd get grass-fed cow milk if it weren't so danged expensive.)

It seems funny to me now that I used to stock my freezer with junk frozen dinners and burritos. Now it's stocked with grass-fed beef, assorted frozen fruits, sale meats, and shredded cheese—the joys of abundance.

Why I'm Boycotting Wal-Mart

July 14, 2009

I doubt Wal-Mart notices, but I'm boycotting Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart endorses political control of health care. Forcing people to buy politically-controlled products against their will is a basic violation of individual rights. So long as Wal-Mart endorses this gross violation of rights, I'm certainly not going to contribute any money to the chain to help them do it. I complained to Wal-Mart, and the reply I got back from the store only turned my irritation to outrage. Here is the reply:

Dear Ari,

My name is Ruel. I am with the Walmart.com Customer Service Team. Thank you for allowing me to assist you today.

We appreciate your interest in Wal-Mart's views on the efforts in Congress to craft and pass legislation for Healthcare Reform. At Wal-Mart, we believe in a shared responsibility and support an employer mandate that is broad and fair for all parties involved. We believe this mandate should cover as many businesses as possible, part-time as well as full time employees.

We believe that a mandate must also be accompanied by strong provisions that will reduce health cost and improve the value we get for our health care dollar. Any mandate should guarantee savings for the federal government and for employers who provide health insurance.

Wal-Mart is committed to helping people save money so they can live better and will offer our support to any initiative that will improve the quality of life for our employees and patrons. Wal-Mart will remain consistent by continuing to implement our core beliefs; respect for the individual, service to our customers and striving for excellence.

We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced.

Thank you for visiting Walmart.com. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and look forward to your next visit.

Sincerely,

Ruel
Customer Service at Walmart.com

For a more honest evaluation of Wal-Mart's motives, see the (http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2009/07/wal-mart-and-employer-mandate.html) critique at FIRM.

May Wal-Mart be damned for selling out American rights and values.

Comment by Crimson Wife: Add this to the list of reasons why I generally avoid shopping at Wal-Mart. Pretty much the only thing I ever buy from them is music, because of their policy of selling only the sanitized versions.

Comment by Ron: Actually, I think Wal-Mart is taking a purely capitalist approach by looking out for their bottom line. They probably see that private insurance companies will never be able to compete with government sponsored health care and everyone will be forced into the Obama option. Therefore they won't need to provide that employee benefit once we have fully socialized medicine. The future is not looking too rosy at this point.

Comment by Ari: A "capitalist approach" cannot entail the implementation or endorsement of socialism.

Comment by Ron: It's also true that the current way that most people get health care insurance is not ideal. I think Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh got it exactly correct here: (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) "The current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is a catastrophe, and it is a result of government intervention in the free market."
Everyone would be better off with a free market approach to health care.

Comment by Chuck Moe: FIRM's take is spot on. Wal-Mart is simply crowding out competition by government policy. What's the definition of fascism again? Oh yes, according to the economic library of liberty, it's "socialism with a capitalist veneer" and oh how thin the veneer is these days.

Half-Blood Prince Review

July 15, 2009

Jennifer and I decided last-minute to see the midnight showing of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I figured I was already way off my schedule, so I might as well write a review as well. I published it this morning around 5:30. My review is targeted to those already familiar with the story. I'll be interested to see if I notice anything new—or change my mind about anything—on a second viewing.

Feel free to let me know if you have a different take on the film.

Read my (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/potter6.html) review, "Movie Does Justice to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince."

Update: David Yates (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/harry_potter_and_the_half_blood_prince/news/1832250/rt_interview_david_yates_on_harry_potter_and_the_half_blood_prince) discusses leaving out the Minister and adding in a couple of of scenes not from the book. I liked the bridge scene, but the waitress scene seemed out of place. I wish he had dumped it and put the Minister back in!

Harry Potter Radio

July 18, 2009

On Friday evening I joined Bob Glass on the radio to talk about Harry Potter.

I start in about two-thirds through the (http://www.rmrnetwork.com/rss/rfa/071709_rfa1.mp3) first hour.

We also spent the entire (http://www.rmrnetwork.com/rss/rfa/071709_rfa2.mp3) second hour continuing our discussion (though with an occasional diversion).

Bob is a Potter virgin, so I summarized the major story arch for him and for listeners unfamiliar with the stories. We talked a lot about the anti-totalitarian political themes of the series. We also talked about the Christian criticisms of the books as well as the religious themes within them. (I also briefly summarized my view that the religious themes of the books are not very strong or pronounced.)

I had a lot of fun discussing the Potter books and movies with Bob. In general, Bob's show is shaping up with good analysis of current events. You can check him out at (http://bobglassradio.com/) BobGlassRadio.com. (He said he'd start updating his page more frequently and even start looking into Twitter.) The (http://thebigmoneystation.com/) online feed works very well, so you can listen to his show 9-11 p.m. (mountain) anywhere in the world where internet is available.

Of course, if you're interested in more of what I have to say about Harry Potter, check out my book and additional essays at (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/) ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.

Comment by Anonymous: Just an observation: At my booksignings at Colonial Williamsburg (and other venues), when I spot a likely Harry Potter fan (the Potter glasses are the usual tip-off), I ask him or her: How would you like to meet heroes who don't need magic to fight their enemies? That question invariably intrigues the person, enough to sample at my invitation the first pages of Sparrowhawk: Jack Frake. They're hooked. They eventually read the whole series. One of the many draws to the series is that I introduce the heroes when they're 10-year-old boys, and over the course of 30 years (ending in the fall of 1775), readers see how their convictions, principles and love of freedom develop in the heroes, and what they do about them as boys all the way up to Bunker Hill and the explosive climax on the York River in Virginia. Dina Federman will be reviewing Sparrowhawk for TOS. She contributed an essay to the Sparrowhawk Companion. Ed Cline

Moon

July 18, 2009

If you like science fiction driven by ideas and characters' psychology, go see Moon. Don't watch the preview first, don't read any reviews, don't even read the rest of this post following this paragraph. Just go see it. You may not like all the ideas in the movie, but then at least there's something to positively dislike, a big step up from today's typical, mindless "action" film. I'll be stunned if Sam Rockwell doesn't get major awards for his fine acting. I only wish I hadn't watched the preview first, as it gives away the central story arch. My comments that follow, then, are mainly directed at those who have already seen the movie and want to evaluate it more deeply.

There's nothing truly original with the story. In its premise it reminds me a lot of Blade Runner (which already gives the game away to those who have seen that film). Isolation in space, cloning—these are the staples of science fiction. So what I like about the movie is the skill in which these traditional motifs are carried off.

This is a film that, despite its dark and morally troubling subject matter, keeps a bright spirit, at least ultimately. I feared it would descend to psychosis and to the character's detachment from reality.

What I don't like about the film is its anti-industrial bias. Indeed, the entire premise of the story is ridiculous.

So here it goes (again, you shouldn't be reading this if you haven't seen the movie and may wish to do so). The background for the story is that a large corporation that produces energy on the moon clones a guy to service the station. The clone lives for around three years and then is incinerated, at which time a new clone takes his place, oblivious to what's going on.

The back story is just stupid. Here we have a company responsible for generating 70 percent of the Earth's energy, yet it can't afford to send a regular crew up to man the station? Moreover, we're supposed to believe that an intricate system of cloning is less costly to create and maintain than just sending up regular people for reasonable stints, presumably in pairs or teams? As the movie reveals, rocket technology has advanced considerably and must be regularly used to transport physical goods. Beyond that, as the movie makes clear, the cloning system can break down, so the company must also pay a regular crew to visit the station to solve related problems. That's supposed to save costs?

But of course that is only the minor issue. The main issue is that the company creates new people and then systematically violates their rights. They are essentially slaves. The company's behavior is wrong, and it is contrary to the principles of individual rights on which capitalism is based. So the government's legitimate responsibility would be to stop the rights violations.

And we're supposed to believe that a company could keep such a thing hidden for many years? Wouldn't anyone ask any questions about how all that energy is produced? In the end the company is exposed. In the real world, if any remnant of justice remained, everybody involved in the criminal side of the operation would then go to jail for a very long time. While obviously people like Madoff demonstrate that some people engage in criminal behavior for short-term financial gain, such behavior is severely self-destructive and unsustainable.

(A related economic issue is that no company would likely maintain such a large market share over time without political privilege. With property rights protected for homesteaders, and given diseconomies of scale, I'd expect to see a number of production companies. We do not know the political nature of the energy production in the film.)

The irony of the movie is that the new Evil Corporation is the "greenest" corporation ever to exist. It has accomplished what many environmentalists claim to desire. The entire premise driving enviro-socialism is the old Marxist canard that profit-seeking business people are inherently corrupt. As the movie illustrates, this prejudice does not dissipate merely because the business produces politically-correct goods. (Don't get me wrong; I'd love to see cost-effective, off-world energy production within my lifetime, though I don't see that as a feasible alternative to Earth-bound energy into the indefinite future.)

But many writers in their laziness pull out the Marx card any time they need to generate some malignant force. Blame it on the evil businessman. Why let the resulting artistic idiocy get in the way?

Comment by madmax: Moon sounds like a movie I just saw, namely 'The Island' which was a 2005 directed by Michael Bay. The plot revolved around an evil corporation making clones to kill them for organs with the tacit support of the government. These movies reflect the leftist view that capitalism = fascism or that economic power = political power; ie same old stale Marxist garbage. But these ideas dominate Leftist Hollywood as well as the popular culture. Moon does sound like a good movie though apart from its anti-capitalist premise. And it was made for only 6 million dollars. I too am curious to see what kind of recognition it gets from the various movie academies.

DeMint's Health Handouts Violate Liberty

July 20, 2009

The following article originally (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090720/OPINION/907199989/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) was published in the July 20, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

DeMint's health handouts violate liberty

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Memo to Republican Senator Jim DeMint: (http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=SponsoredBills.HealthCareFreedomAct) tax-subsidized health welfare is not "free-market reform."

DeMint touts his "Health Care Freedom Plan" as an alternative to President Obama's political takeover of medicine. The plan contains some good ideas. It reduces political controls of insurance by allowing people to buy policies out of state. It limits frivolous lawsuits. And it allows people with Health Savings Accounts to use pre-tax money to purchase insurance.

Part of the plan, however, forces some people to finance other people's health care. That's not freedom, it's a threat to throw people in prison if they don't pay up.

Real freedom in medicine means that patients, doctors, and insurers have the right to voluntarily interact to mutual advantage, free from force, fraud, and political controls. Real freedom means that you may choose to pay for somebody else's health care if you want, but others may not force you to pay for their care.

The problem with American medicine is that over decades politicians have seized control of much of medicine, driven up costs, and largely destroyed the market for real health insurance by tying most people to expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance.

In order to "solve" the political failures of the past, today's Democrats want to extend their power over medicine by increasing tax subsidies, forcing people to buy politically-controlled insurance, and subjecting doctors to ever more controls.

Now that Lady Liberty needs her Knight in Shining Armor more than ever, some Republicans have busied themselves instead with stabbing freedom advocates in the back.

It was, after all, Republican Mitt Romney who advanced the political takeover of medicine in Massachusetts. That state forces people to buy insurance—though many there continue to buy it only when they face expensive medical procedures, as a recent (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726287099225209.html) Wall Street Journal editorial points out—and massively subsidizes health expenses with tax dollars.

Massachusetts suffers from exploding costs and doctor shortages, so naturally Democrats want to duplicate that failed experiment on a national scale.

To his credit, DeMint rejects insurance mandates. Yet a core part of DeMint's plan shares Obama's premises that some must be forced to pay for the medicine of others.

(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1324:) DeMint's bill 1324 creates a "refundable tax credit" for non-employer insurance of $2,000 for individuals and $5,000 for families. That's a great idea for those who would simply get a tax break, as it would offset the tax incentive to get overpriced insurance through employers.

The problem is that those who pay less income tax than that would get a subsidy or voucher, in other words a handout.

DeMint disingenuously claims that his vouchers will generate "no cost," as he would redirect "stimulus" money to fund the vouchers. But this is merely changing the recipients of the forced wealth transfers.

The "stimulus" special-interest spending should be stopped immediately, and the federal government should reduce its spending to match so that the real economy can direct those resources productively.

Given the better points of DeMint's bill, are we overly critical of the handouts? The problem is that, by granting the premise that some people should be forced to fund the health care of others, DeMint ultimately grants the entire case to his opponents.

Individuals have the right to their own labor and income. It is wrong to rob Peter to pay for Paul's health care. Forcing some to finance the health care of others violates the rights of those paying the bills and breeds abusiveness and irresponsibility among recipients. DeMint's handouts ignore those truths.

So long as Republicans play the handout game, they will correctly be seen as "me-tooing" the Democrats, and they will continue to lose, step by step, inch by inch, to those who would subject the entire economy to political controls.

DeMint's handouts also distract attention away from the fundamental problem: health insurance is too expensive because of political controls. You solve that problem by repealing the controls, not by hiding them behind another welfare scheme.

(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/gop-senator-pushes-alternative-government-funded-voucher-health-care/) In a Fox interview, DeMint praises the market, says "Americans don't want more government in health care," and lauds competition. But a tax-funded free market is a contradiction in terms. If people buy insurance with tax dollars, politicians will continually seek to expand political control over insurance, rather than roll back those controls. Thus, DeMint's handouts will tend to diminish the free market for insurance, not augment it.

We applaud DeMint for looking seriously at ways to redress the problems of politically-manipulated health care. We especially like his reforms of Health Savings Accounts and lawsuits. We agree with DeMint when he says, "No American should be forced into a government-run system that limits their choices and rations their care."

To successfully restore free markets, though, DeMint needs to do something other than promise more handouts. He needs to unequivocally champion the individual's right to his own life, resources, and property.

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.

God Wants Political Takeover of Medicine

July 21, 2009

God wants Congress to take over medicine, at least according to the Colorado Catholic Conference (CCC).

In an "action alert," the CCC today called for legislatively guaranteed "health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death." (The CCC wants "inclusion for legal immigrants," so apparently illegal immigrants would not have access to tax-funded health care under the organization's desired system.)

Even though the CCC wants to use the force of the federal government to compel some people to finance the health care of others' fertilized eggs, the organization wants to forbid forced funding of abortion. The CCC calls on Catholics to demand federal politicians to "continue federal ban on funding for abortions and reject any mandate for abortion coverage or access to abortion."

There is no mention of whether the CCC favors tax funding of contraception, which Catholics regard as sinful.

The CCC also likewise endorses "including freedom of conscience for providers, health care workers and patients." For health care workers, presumably this means that tax-funded doctors and other health care providers may be free not to offer abortion and contraception to patients. Does it also mean that women should be left free to decide whether to get an abortion? (Somehow I doubt that is the CCC's intended meaning.)

Once force guides the process, such decisions will be determined by mob rule and bureaucratic influence. Whether politically-controlled medicine subsidizes or forbids things like abortion and contraception will necessarily become fundamentally a political matter.

The CCC made clear that, in its view, politically-controlled medicine is demanded by God's teachings in the Bible:

Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care: In our Catholic tradition, health care is a basic human right. Access to health care should not depend on where a person works, how much a family earns, or where a person lives. Instead, every person, created in the image and likeness of God, has a right to life and to those things necessary to sustain life, including affordable, quality health care. This teaching is rooted in the biblical call to heal the sick and to serve "the least of these," our concern for human life and dignity, and the principle of the common good. Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans do not have health insurance. According to the Catholic bishops of the United States, the current health care system is in need of fundamental reform. To learn about Catholic teaching on health care in more detail, read the full statement by the United States Catholic Bishops, A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform, at (http://usccb.org/sdwp/national/comphealth.shtml) usccb.org/sdwp/national/comphealth.shtml

For excellent essays on why health care is not a right and why politically-run medicine is a disaster, see (http://www.westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

For why the United States ought not impose religious faith by force of law, see the First Amendment and the material at the (http://www.seculargovernment.us/) Coalition for Secular Government.

Comment by Tom: I know that Objectivism generally frowns on religion but I think the reality of this situation is that the Catholic church here is making a huge mistake in regards to the teachings of Jesus. (I personally was raised Catholic but now consider myself a Deist.) The Bible doesn't say that we should use coercion to force people to do what we think is right. The Bible teaches lessons like: lead by example, treat others as you wish to be treated, serve others (personally) Now, I don't agree with the serve others part, because I think religion over the ages has bastardized charity into altruism, but if one takes a look at Jesus' teachings overall they do not lead, in any way, to the verdict that these Catholics are handing down (from the Pope, who recently made a speech about the evils of Capitalism.) If these people actually followed the teachings of their savior, *they* would help the sick, not *force* us to through government.

Hope and Change in Harry Potter

July 22, 2009

The following article originally (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=5030) was published by the July 22, 2009, Denver Daily News. It is also available through the (http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=1758) Independence Institute website.

Hope and change in Harry Potter

by Ari Armstrong

With Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince breaking movie records, now is a great time to review the political themes of the series.

In the fifth book, Order of the Phoenix, the students of Hogwarts rebel against the Ministry of Magic's unjust exertion of power over the school.

In the final book, Deathly Hallows, the Ministry falls under the control of the evil Lord Voldemort. The fallen government censors the press, brutalizes wizards and Muggles (non-magical people) alike, and persecutes wizards born to the "wrong" parents through the Muggle-Born Registration Commission, echoing the vicious evils of the Nazi era. The Potter series thus features strong anti-totalitarian themes.

Between those two books rests Half-Blood Prince, which tones down the politics in favor of (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/lovehalfbloodprince.html) romance and backstory. Yet politics flows in the undercurrents.

In one important scene in the book (that unfortunately didn't make it into the film), the Minister of Magic visits Harry and tries to get him to feign support for the Ministry in order to comfort people.

The Minister says, "It's all perception, isn't it? It's what people believe that's important." He continues, "You are a symbol of hope for many, Harry. The idea that there is somebody out there who might be able... to destroy [Voldemort]... gives people a lift." The Minister urges Harry to "stand alongside the Ministry, and give everyone a boost."

The Minister asks Harry to pop "in and out of the Ministry" to "give the right impression." He offers Harry a payoff in the form of help getting a job. The Minister says, "It's all about giving people hope, the feeling that exciting things are happening."

Harry realizes that misguided "hope" isn't worth much. He retorts, "I don't like some of the things the Ministry's doing. Locking up Stan Shunpike [who is known to be innocent], for instance... You're making Stan a scapegoat, just like you want to make me a mascot."

The Minister condescends, "These are dangerous times, and certain measures need to be taken. You are sixteen years old..." In other words, shut up and do what you're told.

Half-Blood Prince was published in 2005. Four years later, I certainly have the feeling that exciting things are happening here in America. In the name of hope we are offered astronomically expensive new programs that forcibly transfer more wealth from some citizens to others and expand political control over our lives.

These are dangerous times, at least for economic prosperity, and "certain measures need to be taken." What measures? Not even those voting on the bills quite know. It's about perception, giving people a lift, not long-term consequences. At least the rivers of political payola are flowing.

I don't want to pretend that J. K. Rowling, author of the novels, would agree with any of my particular political views. Still, the Minister's words remind me of a lot of what I'm hearing from American politicians these days.

When Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff, said politicians should (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html) "never let a serious crisis go to waste," what is that besides putting the politics of perception above the truth?

(http://www.pjtv.com/) Vice President Joe Biden said, "We're going to go bankrupt as a nation. Now when I say that people look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we got to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?' The answer is yes, I'm telling you."

The claim that the way to avoid bankruptcy is to rack up insane deficits insults the intelligence of every American family that has ever made a budget. Ah, but "certain measures need to be taken." And we are as children, awaiting the guidance of our political guardians.

I don't like some of the things our government is doing. All the hope in the world cannot compensate for misguided and unjust policies.

Ari Armstrong, a guest writer for the Independence Institute, is the author of (http://valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter and the publisher of FreeColorado.com.

Don't Ban Or Force Abortion

July 23, 2009

Today's Boulder Weekly published my new article, (http://www.boulderweekly.com/20090723/perspectives.html) "Don't ban or force abortions."

It begins:

The debate over abortion seems more contentious than ever in America today. Some want to ban all abortions from the moment of conception. Others want to forcibly sterilize people and compel women to get abortions.

But are those two groups really that different? They share fundamentally similar goals. Both would sacrifice the individual to some alleged greater good. Both would use the force of government to squash the rights of individuals. The moral alternative is to consistently uphold the rights of individuals to determine the course of their own lives.

Comments by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and by President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, have raised concerns about politically promoted or required abortions. ...

Following are links to three articles I consulted.

(http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/10/the-ghoulish-spirit-of-margaret-sanger-lives/) "The ghoulish spirit of Margaret Sanger lives," by Michelle Malkin

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html) "The Place of Women on the Court," by Emily Bazelon (New York Times)

(http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_12837799) "Science fiction czar," by David Harsanyi (Denver Post)

Comment by Crimson Wife: Isn't one of the tenets of libertarianism that each of us is free to do what we like so long as nobody else gets hurt? That's why there are laws against murder. Why should that tenet only apply to some humans and not others? A person is a person and ought to be protected from violence against him/her regardless of whether he/she lives in or ex utero.

Comment by Ari: I'm not a libertarian, but that is not an accurate summary of it. The reason that laws against murder ought not apply to a fertilized egg is that a fertilized egg is not a person. For details, see http://bit.ly/UJeF5

Pro-Liberty Health Rally Draws Hundreds

July 28, 2009

Hundreds of people came to the state capitol in Denver today to protest the political takeover of medicine endorsed by Barack Obama. (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/07/hundreds-attend-anti-obama-care-rally.html) Slapstick has posted numerous photos and commentary. [Update: See also (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/07/two-cities-same-result-fort-collins.html) Slapstick's coverage of the Wednesday rallies in Fort Collins and Colorado Springs.] The (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12930526) Denver Post also published a decent story with photographs.

(http://www.facethestate.com/articles/17778-slideshow-patients-first-rally-state-capitol) Face the State has added its collection of photos along with summaries of the talks.

The (http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/07/27/daily40.html) Denver Business Journal nicely summarizes Jon Caldara's remarks. It also quotes a press release from Regress Now's Michael Huttner, who, because he can't sustain any arguments for his side, resorts to projecting his astroturf green onto a large and obviously grass-roots movement.

The (http://www.gazette.com/articles/denver-59266-rallies-care.html) Colorado Springs Gazette summarizes the messages of the daytime rally as well as a smaller, leftist rally the same evening.

On Tuesday evening I joined (http://www.rmrnetwork.com/rss/rfa/072809_rfa1.mp3) Bob Glass's radio show to discuss the rally (during the second half of the first hour).

Interviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmTZF3Z_V4

Speaker highlights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4dQg9mS6r4

My speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHqfLRBjY7I

***

Comment

W. Earl Allen Submitted on 2009/07/30 at 10:07 am

Ari, this was a masterful, succinct summary of the case for medical freedom. Bravo!

Comment by W. Earl Allen: Ari, this was a masterful, succinct summary of the case for medical freedom. Bravo!

In Health Debate, Left and Right Need to Check Premises

August 3, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090803/COLUMNISTS/908029985/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published on August 3, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

In health debate, left and right need to check premises

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Hundreds gathered at the state capitol last Tuesday to protest the further political takeover of medicine. On Wednesday more than a thousand gathered in Fort Collins and Colorado Springs.

The left has also been vocal. Around the time of the rallies, Rep. Diana DeGette released a speech praising Democratic "reform," and assorted columnists joined in.

Obviously, our sympathies tend toward those who protest Obamacare. (Your junior author gave a speech at the Denver rally that you can (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/pro-liberty-health-rally-draws-hundreds.html) view at FreeColorado.com.) However, while we criticize the left, we also disagree with various sentiments expressed by the right.

We'll begin with the left, where snappy but bogus statistical arguments continue to defy reasoned analysis. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asdwBDbQr8E) DeGette claimed that the United States has "one of the worst results in infant mortality." (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12902741) Ed Quillen of the Denver Post wrote that the French pay less for health care for better results. "We pay considerably more to get shorter lifespans and more dead babies," he wrote.

But obviously health care is only one of many influences on life expectancy (which continues to rise here). Diet plays a large role; Americans tend to carry around more extra pounds. Economists (http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html) Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider point out that relatively high rates of car crashes and homicides depress U.S. life expectancy. By Quillen's logic, politicized medicine can also cure risky driving.

The (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/06/commonwealth.html) U.S. beats France hands down when it comes to cancer survival or access to health technology.

As (http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20081020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf) Sally Pipes and (http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm) others point out, infant mortality is recorded differently in France than it is in the U.S. Here an infant with "any sign of life" that then dies counts as an infant mortality. France adds a viability standard, so the same infant that counts as an "infant mortality" in the U.S. may count as a stillbirth in France. (http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html) Ronald Baily adds that more infants tend to be born underweight in the U.S. because more teens have children here.

DeGette and Quillen damn American doctors precisely because they heroically try to save infants that in France would be discarded.

The left suffers worse ideological problems. (http://www.denverpost.com/littwin/ci_12934136) Mike Littwin, also of the Post, argued last week that equality-driven, politically-run health care is a moral issue.

We quite agree it is a moral issue. It is immoral to seize people's resources by force. It is immoral to forcibly override the independent judgment of doctors, patients, insurers, and consumers and to nullify their agreements. We oppose politically-run medicine because it violates morality. Moral health care respects people's rights of liberty, property, and voluntary association.

Unfortunately, the right also veers off track. (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/demints-health-handouts-violate-liberty.html) Previously we wrote about the failings of Republicans like Mitt Romney, who pushed through mandatory, subsidized insurance in Massachusetts, and Jim DeMint, who advocates different health welfare.

Many at the Denver rally urged members of Congress to "read the bill first." We agree, but politicized health care threatens our health and liberty even if they read the bill.

Some opposed Obamacare because it may include tax financing of abortions. Yet this is a side-line issue. We get the eerie feeling that some on the right would accept bureaucratic medicine if it came packaged with an abortion ban (a possibility that should give the left pause).

We join the many calls for tort reform, but again that's not a fundamental issue. Reining in law suits won't fix the problems caused by political interference in health funding, delivery, and insurance. Still, we do want to weed out frivolous suits while compensating damage resulting from negligence.

One of the speakers at the Denver rally, Preston Gibson of the Jefferson Economic Council, eloquently argued that the "public option" would drive out private insurance.

Unfortunately, Gibson also claimed that "employer-sponsored health insurance has been the foundation of the highest quality health care on earth." Wrong. Employer-paid insurance is the product of federal tax manipulation. It is non-portable. It is expensive because it encourages people to use insurance for routine care rather than unexpected, high-cost emergencies.

American medicine is great despite the IRS-promoted employer-paid system. We should move away from employer-paid insurance to individual policies. We support the expansion of Health Savings Accounts to allow the purchase of insurance with pre-tax dollars.

Jeff Crank, organizer of the Denver rally, likewise made many admirable points. However, he also claimed that the "right kind of health care reform" includes "eliminating the pre-existing conditions exclusion." We take this to mean imposing more political controls on insurance companies.

When insurers are forced to take people with pre-existing conditions, many people wait to buy insurance until they get sick, undermining the very purpose of insurance (and leading to Romney-style mandates). The real answer is to remove all the political controls of insurance that have mostly destroyed the market for long-term policies.

Too often neither the left nor the right gets it. The name of our favorite health policy group summarizes the essential values we must protect: (http://www.westandfirm.org/) Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Report Yourself to Obama's Thought Police

August 6, 2009

Diana Hsieh (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/08/reporting-myself.shtml) points out that opponents of Obamacare need to report themselves to the Obama administration for their "fishy" views.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/) From the White House: "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Here is Diana's self-report:

Dear Minister of Propaganda,

I'd like to report myself. I think that the Obama administration is attempting a government takeover of health care. Mandates are bad enough in themselves, and they're just one step on the road to total government control of medicine. That's appalling. I support individual rights and free markets in health care—not more government welfare and controls.

I've told that to tons of people. Please tell me when and where I should report to my re-education camp.

I like hers so much I wrote a similar one:

Dear Minister of Propaganda,

As per your request, I'd like to report an American citizen to you for daring to exercise his First Amendment rights and speak out against Barack Obama's attempted political takeover of medicine.

I am reporting myself.

Not only do I believe that political interference in medicine is wrong and impractical, but I've told many other people about my views, and I intend to repeat this grave offense again today.

I fear I am an incorrigible practitioner of the First Amendment and an intransigent defender of individual rights. Please notify me when you have established your re-education camps, so that I may report in person.

Sincerely,

Ari Armstrong
Westminster, CO

Comment by Cristen: Wow. Totally inspired—I wrote my own. You can view it at tobekindled.blogspot.com. Thanks for having such passion about liberty! Cristen Recker
Ladies for Liberty
cristen@ipsec.ws

Meet the 'Mob:' Longmont Protests Obamacare

August 7, 2009

Longmont CO Health Ralliers Reply to Democratic 'Mob' Charge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx06f_9dzJ4

August 10 Update: In the above video, Spark Erickson says, "Hell, we came in on a bus with 45 agitators... of course we are [part of a mob]. You know that... And if I'm not, they'll tell you I am, so... go whatever way you want to with that." Apparently Erickson's sarcasm was lost on some viewers. Jeff Crank, the event's organizer, reports, "In total, there were six people who rode the bus from place to place on the bus tour. That includes the driver and tour coordinator."

Longmont CO Health Raly August 6 2009 Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sVJB8ELnAY

Longmont CO Health Raly August 6 2009 Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6VO50ClUkQ

Longmont CO Health Rally Speakers August 6, 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiiLEufsnPc

According to certain Democratic leaders, those who protest Obamacare are mobs. (http://bendegrow.com/2009/memo-to-my-fellow-mob-stay-strong-and-respectful-against-obama-care/) Ben DeGrow offers a good summary of articles related to this.

(http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13002359) Congressman Ed Perlmutter told the Denver Post about tense Town Hall meetings, "They gin up this conflict and in some ways thuggery to try and stop stuff."

In other words, at a Town Hall meeting, where politicians invite people to come and speak, politicians expect people to shut up and take it.

According to Congressman Perlmutter, forcibly confiscating people's money is not "thuggery." Forcing some people to subsidize others through a maze of insurance controls and mandates is not "thuggery." Dictating to doctors how they shall provide health care, to patients how they shall receive it, and to insurers how they shall insure it, is not "thuggery." But complaining about it, that is "thuggery." Speaking up is "thuggery." Saying "no" to Big Brother is "thuggery." Daring to exercise the First Amendment is "thuggery." According to Congressman Perlmutter.

I was amazed that 150 to 200 people showed up for a "Hands Off My Health" rally in Longmont, in the middle of a work day, when (http://bendegrow.com/2009/colorado-show-up-for-hands-off-my-health-care-bus-tour-august-6-8/) seven such rallies were scheduled across the state with little advance notice.

I talked to a number of participants. I asked people why they came to the rally. I asked them why they oppose Obamacare. Finally, I asked them what they think of Democratic smears that they're part of some "mob." In short, I did what Democrats are deathly afraid to do: listen to people's opinions.

August 8 Update: I've added a fourth video, featuring some of the comments of the speakers. My favorite videos feature the participants. Please note that I don't necessarily agree with everything said at the rally.

Moreover, I didn't include everything I recorded in the published videos. I omitted a couple of comments, one calling Obama a "bastard" and another calling him a "racist." These were not indicative of the mood or sentiment of the event, nor do I regard such remarks as remotely useful. I recorded at least one comment about abortion that I left out; however, I think only one or two people I talked with mentioned the issue.

One guy said he thinks the solution is local taxes to care for the poor, which, while arguably better than federal programs, is neither consistent with liberty nor remotely adequate for those who regard health care as some sort of right.

Jeff Crank, the event's organizer, made the same comment he made at a previous rally, which is that the government should force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions. I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/in-health-debate-left-and-right-need-to.html) criticized that view previously (in a co-authored column with my dad).

I approached people more or less randomly for interviews. Obviously only a minority agreed to be interviewed.

Interestingly, while some of the handful of union-associated counter-protesters (http://www.timescall.com/News_Story.asp?id=17431) talked with the Longmont Daily Times-Call, they all refused to grant me an interview. They said they were too busy and had to hit the road to attend the next rally. I think they were simply unable to make their case for Obamacare and knew as much.

However, I gave Nate, one of the counter-protestors, my card. I told him he could write a 500 word reply to this post, and I would publish it, unedited, perhaps with my reply. If you actually have arguments for your position, Nate, please take advantage of my offer. Otherwise, people might think you're all show and no substance.

***

Comments

Ari Submitted on 2009/08/10 at 11:40 pm

THE BUS: To definitively settle the matter, Jeff Crank, the event's organizer, reports, "In total, there were six people who rode the bus from place to place on the bus tour. That includes the driver and tour coordinator."

Anonymous Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 10:38 pm

… As a Sr. Citizen, I must say, I've never witnessed a United States Presidential administration like this one. … Of course senior citizens are against health care, they've already GOT their government health care and could care less about the rest of us. Why don't you hypocrites fight to get rid of Medicare? Oh, that's right, YOU are entitled to government health care but those of us working and paying taxes to support YOUR health care have no right to health care ourselves. Got it. Thanks.

Anonymous Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 2:33 pm

So what's the big deal about going on a bus to these things? Saves on parking, traffic, gas, and let's not forget fragile Mother Earth!

T.L. James Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 12:48 pm

Great stuff, Ari.

We have some coverage over at People's Press Collective of Perlmutter's town-hall cowering-I-mean-meeting in Brighton yesterday. Including some shots of a pro-Obamacare astroturfer and an interview which illustrates the point above about not knowing the issue.

Anonymous Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 12:48 pm

People are commenting on their clothes, because Barbara Boxer (D-CA)said that the healthcare reform protesters are too well dressed to be just concerned citizens so they must be planted by the GOP, insurance companies, etc.

Ari Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 11:56 am

Actually, the union-associated counter-protesters, who went from rally to rally, were relatively young and attractive. And entirely uninterested in articulating their views.

Anonymous Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 11:34 am

Good stuff!

I wonder if interviews with a busload of fat guys in purple "SEIU" t-shirts would be as convincing.

sh007r Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 11:06 am

planecrashlaw

Plane crash lawyer?

At least he admits to be a liberal.

Soo0, planecrash, how bout some TORT reform? That could save $3-500 Billion annually.

Ari Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 10:46 am

The comments about clothing are a response Democratic smears.

Anonymous Submitted on 2009/08/09 at 9:58 am

Folks,

Please next time around remember not to call leftists thugs, mobs… By the way why people talk about their clothing or profession to prove that they are not a mob?

Comment by mtnrunner2: Those look great. Really clear video and audio, nice editing.

Comment by Joe: Wow, spooky Brooks Brothers people..sorry, kidding. Very nicely done, well put together. Thank you for sharing this.

Comment by Rabble: Me, myself and I = mob

Comment by planecrashlaw: Such as spontanious gathering. Too bad they failed to edit out the "hands off my healthcare" bus that was used to spontaniously take them as a group to the rally. Yep--total grass roots.

Comment by Kirk: You did some great work with those videos and report. Thanks!

Comment by Ari: The bus is in fact shown in part of a video. But the bus only took around a few of the event's organizers. By and large the rally consisted of people from the area to traveled to the event independently—which was why the parking lot was full of cars. The union-associated counter-protesters, though, did travel from rally to rally.

Comment by planecrashlaw: Check the video--one man says 45 came on the bus--so 1/3 to 1/4 of the crowd. By and large I will also drive myself to a pro reform rally, but the spin on the right will be that we were all bussed in by ACORN. No big deal, I'll admit to some astroturfing on my side if you will on yours.

Comment by Ari: planecrashlaw—I thought it was obvious that guy was being sarcastic. Nevertheless, I've left a message with Jeff Crank, and I'll ask him exactly how many people went from rally to rally in the bus.

Comment by Diana Hsieh: Great job, Ari! I'm impressed by the responses people gave to why they opposed socialized medicine.

Comment by Anonymous: To the democratic leadership who call these people mobs—you must be familiar with the mob—it takes one to know one.

Comment by kelly: so busses = astroturfing? always? really? look at the people who came on that bus... the elderly... the elderly are well known for going places together on busses. last week, i was at the mall and about 35 sweet ladies in their 60s-70s (by appearances) got off the bus and the bus driver parked the bus while they shopped. astroturfing mall walkers? hardly. the fact that some people got together and hired a bus to bring them to a rally is not evidence of manufactured protest. you have to look a little deeper than the surface for reasons to accuse protestors of astroturfing. here are some characteristics of astroturfing: ** identical signs that have been mass produced ** inability to answer substantive questions regarding the topic at hand **unwillingness to engage in conversation with anyone they deem unsympathetic to their own views ** "team" uniforms ** preponderance of attendees who are not from the area not one of those things was in evidence at this gathering. people riding a bus together... that doesn't equate to astroturfing.

Comment by Anonymous: and i meant to say... great job, ari. thank you so much for taking the time to do this. more of these grassroots videos are what we need to combat the lies and smears. the reporters can write all they want about screaming mobs... but if we're posting the truth in video, their words become pointless.

Comment by Anonymous: The Obama squads have been instructed not to speak to anyone other than the "real" press. No YouTube exposes for them. Senior living centers/communities plan trips for their residents all the time and people sign up for them at will. Nothing astroturfy about that.

Comment by Americanwoman: This is better than S*X! Finally, the American People are getting up off their sofas and SHOWING UP! The whining liberals are coming apart at the seams, led by President Barack Obama. As a Sr. Citizen, I must say, I've never witnessed a United States Presidential administration like this one. I say, "Bring it on, Mr. President. Gather all of your horses and all of your men and let's see if you can survive the WILL of the American people!
Personally, I am shopping for a new outfit...maybe an evening gown, to wear to my next rally. Keep 'em guessin'...right, Senator Boxer? The arrogance of this bunch is thick as pea soup. AMERICA FIRST! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Comment by Americanwoman: To Planecrashlaw: We have, on two occasions so far, hired buses for our rallies here in California. We needed mass transportation after our first couple of rallies (large turn-outs), so we took the initiative to make arrangements...probably a foreign concept to liberals.

Comment by Anonymous: Folks, Please next time around remember not to call leftists thugs, mobs... By the way why people talk about their clothing or profession to prove that they are not a mob?

Comment by Ari: The comments about clothing are a response Democratic smears.

Comment by sh007r: planecrashlaw
Plane crash lawyer?
At least he admits to be a liberal. Soo0, planecrash, how bout some TORT reform? That could save $3-500 Billion annually.

Comment by Anonymous: Good stuff! I wonder if interviews with a busload of fat guys in purple "SEIU" t-shirts would be as convincing.

Comment by Ari: Actually, the union-associated counter-protesters, who went from rally to rally, were relatively young and attractive. And entirely uninterested in articulating their views.

Comment by Anonymous: People are commenting on their clothes, because Barbara Boxer (D-CA)said that the healthcare reform protesters are too well dressed to be just concerned citizens so they must be planted by the GOP, insurance companies, etc.

Comment by T.L. James: Great stuff, Ari. We have some coverage over at People's Press Collective of (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/08/congressman-perlmutter-holds-health-care-town-hall-meeting-in-brighton/) Perlmutter's town-hall cowering-I-mean-meeting in Brighton yesterday. Including some shots of (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/08/the-real-astroturfing-is-on-the-progressive-left/) a pro-Obamacare astroturfer and an (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/08/healthcare-is-a-right-not-a-privilege-a-bit-unclear-on-the-concept/) interview which illustrates the point above about not knowing the issue.

Comment by Anonymous: So what's the big deal about going on a bus to these things? Saves on parking, traffic, gas, and let's not forget fragile Mother Earth!

Comment by Anonymous: ... As a Sr. Citizen, I must say, I've never witnessed a United States Presidential administration like this one. ... Of course senior citizens are against health care, they've already GOT their government health care and could care less about the rest of us. Why don't you hypocrites fight to get rid of Medicare? Oh, that's right, YOU are entitled to government health care but those of us working and paying taxes to support YOUR health care have no right to health care ourselves. Got it. Thanks.

Comment by Ari: THE BUS: To definitively settle the matter, Jeff Crank, the event's organizer, reports, "In total, there were six people who rode the bus from place to place on the bus tour. That includes the driver and tour coordinator."

Planter's Progress

August 9, 2009

If posting has been a little slow this summer, a big part of the reason is that we've been working hard on the property.

We finally finished up the front yard. Here's the progress in pictures:

[Update August 16, 2025: One of the pictures is below. This looked really nice for a while, but now our yard looks totally different. The big problem with the 2009 strategy is that the mulch mostly blew away during Colorado's intense wind storms. Later we got blue siding, which did not match well with the red brick. Also, the bricks shifted and became uneven, and weeds grew between the cracks. Now the strategy I like is to buy large pavers (Home Depot sells 2 by 2 feet pavers) spaced with gaps, and grow grass and/or clover in the gaps. Also, eventually our grass died in the heat, so now we're growing a combination of native grasses (I prefer buffalo) and low-water flowers.]

We purchased the red concrete pavers at Home Depot for 79 cents each. We bought around 250 blocks. We also got laying sand there.

We ordered a truckload of Washington Cedar Mulch from (http://www.pioneersand.com/) Pioneer.

The sod and flowers came from O'Tooles.

We discovered that large planters cost a fortune at garden centers. Therefore, we purchased two $30 plastic "pond" liners at Home Depot, drilled holes in the bottom, and painted them brown.

Malkin Mentions Longmont Rally

August 9, 2009

A video of the "Hands Off My Health Care" rally from August 6 in Longmont, Colorado, has received over a thousand YouTube views—and counting.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/meet-mob-longmont-protests-obamacare.html) Watch all four videos.

The most-watched video, and my personal favorite, is "Longmont CO Health Ralliers Reply to Democratic 'Mob' Charge:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx06f_9dzJ4

The video also got a brief mention by (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/07/nancy-pelo-cchios-astroturf-brigade/) Michelle Malkin in an August 7 blog.

Tom Lucero Discusses Health Reform, Campaign '10

August 10, 2009

Finally I have succeeded in uploading to YouTube an August 6 video featuring an interview with Congressional hopeful Tom Lucero, who hopes to survive the GOP primary to challenge Betsy Markey (who took out Republican Marilyn Musgrave last time around). (http://www.lucero2010.com/) Lucero faces (http://corygardner.com/) Cory Gardner in the primary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTuvC4RP3xM

I caught Lucero at the "Hands Off My Health Care" rally in Longmont. He discussed health policy, cap-and-trade, Ward Churchill, and the primary.

Watch the other four (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/meet-mob-longmont-protests-obamacare.html) videos on health reform featuring the Longmont "mob," including the popular "Longmont CO Health Ralliers Reply to Democratic 'Mob' Charge."

***

Comment

Adam Reed Submitted on 2009/08/10 at 6:31 pm

Ari,

This is from Lucero's bio on his campaign web site: "As a Catholic, Tom believes in the value of life and the essential role of family." In current political language, "value of life" means opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell and cloning-based technologies, and so on. "Essential role of family" means official discrimination against non-traditional families, gay couples and so on. And that's only the stuff that Lucero does not even bother to hide. Caveat empptor.

Comment by Adam Reed: Ari, This is from Lucero's bio on his campaign web site: "As a Catholic, Tom believes in the value of life and the essential role of family." In current political language, "value of life" means opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell and cloning-based technologies, and so on. "Essential role of family" means official discrimination against non-traditional families, gay couples and so on. And that's only the stuff that Lucero does not even bother to hide. Caveat empptor.

Dear YouTube: Please Charge Me!

August 10, 2009

Dear YouTube,

You have a great service. The problem is that it's "free." (I understand your owner, Google, continues to lose money on you.)

Because uploading videos to YouTube is "free," I have wasted several hours over the last three days trying to upload videos to your server. I am currently trying to upload a 9 minute, 40 second video, at medium resolution, featuring an interview with a Colorado Congressional candidate. My wait time is 16 hours. This is the third time I've tried—and apparently failed—to upload the video. (I have a good cable line, so I don't think that's the problem.)

Call me crazy, but I think publishing videos like this in a timely manner is healthy for our republic.

With a previous video, my wait time was up to 48 hours. (I cancelled the upload, obviously.)

YouTube is a sweet service. Just about everybody loves it. I love it. But I'd love it a whole lot more if I could pay you for improved service.

Here's just one possibility for pricing. Users could purchase credits, say one credit per dollar, perhaps with a bulk discount. You could price based on file size. Then users could make the tradeoffs between length and resolution. Charge, say, a dollar for files up to 100 megs, two dollars up to 200 megs, etc. Obviously you could adjust the actual rates based on costs, demand, advertising revenues, etc. You could even charge a premium for peak-time access.

If you already offer people the option of paying you for better upload service, I've missed it. Perhaps you or a reader will correct me. But, assuming the option is not already available, I beg you, please don't make me continue to use your service for "free!"

Sincerely,
Ari Armstong

August 10 Update: After several failed attempts to upload the video in question through iMovie, I tried uploading the file directly to YouTube and had much better success. So it's unclear to me why the iMovie upload doesn't work well, but the direct upload works better. At any rate, I'm still interested to learn how YouTube hopes to make money from its operation—and provide users with good service in the process.

Comment by Anonymous: The fault may lie with your ISP, not Google. ISPs have to limit traffic because *they* often can't charge for people who do high bandwidth uploads and downloads--because of "net neutrality." NS

Rep. Mike Coffman Wrong to Demand More Insurance Controls

August 10, 2009

In a July 30 (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12940517) article for the Denver Post, Rep. Mike Coffman criticizes "increasing the government's involvement in our health care system." Why, then, is that what he promotes?

Coffman wants politicians to "require health insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions." But prior political interference is precisely what created the problem. Tax policy pushed many Americans into the expensive, non-portable employer-paid system. Lose your job, lose your insurance. Politicians burden insurers with reams of ever-changing controls, undercutting their ability to offer long-term policies.

Forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions only encourages people to wait to get insurance until they get sick, leading to Massachusetts-style mandates.

Coffman is right to want to limit frivolous legal suits and ease the tax burden for individual purchases of health care. The solution is not more political control but liberty.

(Note: The Denver Post declined to publish the above letter. I'm sure it is merely coincidence that the Post's pro-Obamacare editorial content has vastly outweighed the material critical of Obamacare, particularly in the letters.)

Rationing Inherent in Obamacare: Sources for Gazette Article

August 17, 2009

The Colorado Springs (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/rationing-60239-sola-obamacare.html) Gazette published my article, "Rationing inherent in Obamacare," on Sunday (despite its August 14 posting date). Please read the entire article there. Here my purpose is to provide related links and context.

Barack Obama's line about "not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," may be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo) seen on YouTube. Unfortunately, the clip omits some of the context. Thankfully, ABC has published the complete (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/Story?id=7920012&page=1) transcript of the June 24 broadcast.

Turning to the second page, we find the following lines:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision, and that—that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve.

My short answer is, "Who is this 'we,' compadre?"

(http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm) John Lewis's evaluation of HR 3200 is available online. You can also read the (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text) entire text of the bill for yourself.

The sign from the July 29 Colorado Springs rally is shown in the second photo from a review by (http://www.americansforprosperity.org/073009-huge-turn-out-patients-first-hands-my-health-care-rally-colorado-springs) Americans for Prosperity. I covered the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/meet-mob-longmont-protests-obamacare.html) August 6 Longmont rally on my web page. The information about Mike Sola is available via (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIP7hYqeegQ) YouTube and the (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090811/COL27/908110332) Detroit Free Press.

As a couple of examples of British headlines, here's one about a (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-521772/NHS-chiefs-tell-grandmother-61-shes-old-5-000-life-saving-heart-surgery.html) heart surgery that was initially denied; here's another about (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html) painkilling injections" (via (http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/08/06/rationing-health-care-government/) Patient Power). John (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=7938095&page=1) Stossel's report, which includes information about England and Canada, is at ABC.

Watch the Independence Institute video on Oregon rationing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuekTcSFfM

I got the transcript of Obama's appearance in New Hampshire from the (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-healthcare-transcript-new-hampshire.html) LA Times.

But, again, for my core arguments as to why rationing is inevitable under Obamacare, read the (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/rationing-60239-sola-obamacare.html) Gazette article!

That Government Is Best Which Protects Individual Rights

August 17, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090817/OPINION01/908169990/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published on August 17, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

That government is best which protects individual rights

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

You just don't like government. That's what a friend told your elder author Linn following a local political event, during an informal discussion about which candidates are running and who is supporting them.

It's an odd sort of charge, given that Linn once ran for elected office himself and has participated in numerous campaigns and political functions.

The fact is, we love government, if it's the right sort of government. But not all governments are created equal. Who loves the oppressive governments of North Korea or Iran? What about the fallen government of the Soviet Union? There is no greater evil on the face of the earth than a government gone wrong.

The question, then, is what constitutes good government. That depends primarily on what is the proper purpose of government.

We disagree with Henry David Thoreau when he writes, "That government is best which governs not at all." We answer that government is best which protects individual rights.

Fortunately for us, our forefathers created a republican form of government with strictly delimited powers and an explicit recognition of individual rights. The obvious exception, slavery, took another century to expunge, and racist laws took longer to root out, but finally in this respect America lived up to her founding principles.

Nations to the south of us, on the other hand, often took a course other than freedom, and the result has been frequent juntas, bloodshed, and mass poverty.

Governments that try to run the economies of their nations must enforce their policies at the point of a gun. The mass slaughter and mass starvation of 20th Century Communist nations bear this out.

We witness the contrast of free markets every summer in Palisade, when fruit markets spring up along Highway 6 and 24 and growers sell everything from peaches to tomatoes.

Farmers grow and sell fruit under few political controls. What governs transactions instead is voluntary consent in which both parties benefit from the trade. The government's only useful role is to prevent force and fraud. The old marketing phrase, "reach for a peach," is an exhortation, not a command.

Contrast the benevolent exchange of the free market, in which both parties win, with the force and conflict of political intervention. The city of Fruita prepares to break ground for the city government's recreation center, something we argued against.

We witnessed a city with a friendly reputation fall into heated "us versus them" squabbling. Hostilities had barely receded after the first vote before a second was scheduled. While the motive might have been to improve physical health, the means was to force some to pay for the benefits of others, and this fostered distrust among neighbors and undermined the health of the community.

Meanwhile Clifton, a part of the valley often dismissed as a poorer area, recently witnessed the grand opening of a Gold's Gym. We witnessed no community division over this. The gym opened on time and on budget. While the Fruita center benefits from tax subsidies, Gold's Gym must pay taxes. In Fruita, some won at the expense of others. Gold's Gym illustrated the meaning of win-win.

We think people should be able to make their own decisions concerning their resources, from the color of socks they wear to the brand of peach they buy to the health care they purchase. The alternative is to treat people as wards of the state and stooges of political whim.

The economist F. A von Hayek points out that people are so different and complex that politicians cannot hope to successfully plan out our lives, at least if the goal is our well-being. Hayek lived through an era in which the well-being of the citizenry was hardly high on the list of priorities among social "planners," and mass murder was more likely where politicians ruled unchecked.

In a system of economic freedom, in which property rights are protected and people may direct their resources by their own judgment, people interact by mutual agreement.

Milton Friedman explained, "Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit. No external force, no coercion, no violation of freedom is necessary to produce cooperation among individuals all of whom can benefit."

Right now many are asking what role we should give to government in our lives. Some, hoping for more political favors and a larger share of other people's money, or simply beholden to the ideology of statism, call for more political control of the economy.

We believe that a government that robs from Peter in order to placate Paul and gain his political support is not a government worthy of the United States.

We advocate individual rights. We therefore advocate government designed to protect our rights.

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.

Voyage to the Planets

August 19, 2009

I happened to learn of a new ABC show, (http://www.hulu.com/watch/90052/defying-gravity-h2ik) Defying Gravity, over at Hulu. My wife and I watched, and mostly enjoyed, the first episode. The premise is that a group of astronauts is headed on a trip around the solar system.

But why can't somebody just do good, hard, exciting sci-fi? Defying Gravity is seriously marred by some mysterious force (alien?) on the ship that is driving events. Way to ruin a perfectly great premise.

Fortunately, the BBC show that inspired the dumbed-down, soaped-out American version, Voyage to the Planets and Beyond (originally Space Odyssey: Voyage To The Planets) suffers no such silliness. We Netflixed the two-hour show and really enjoyed it.

The only thing I didn't like about the BBC show (aside from its asinine PC environmentalist segment) is that it portrays a future global (meaning political) effort to explore the solar system, rather than a truly useful future of free-market space exploration. Typical of a political program, the voyage is a rushed, astronomically expensive venture with little payback for the investment. It would be absolute lunacy to send five astronauts on a three-year trip to Pluto, for example. What they should have done is spend the entire time on Mars, as (http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/03/zubrin.html) Bob Zubrin suggests.

Still, part of the point of the show is simply to show the solar system, using top computer imaging based on the latest discoveries. In this goal, the show is a spectacular success. Wow, wow, and more wow. Don't miss the documentary about robotic exploration of space.

What Is Health Insurance?

August 19, 2009

Why does Colorado Democratic Chair Pat Waak want to outlaw my health insurance?

With Barack Obama demonizing health insurance companies and various politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) calling for more insurance controls, now is a good time to review what insurance is.

Insurance (on a free market) is simply a voluntary agreement to pool resources to pay for high-cost risks.

Let us take a simplified example. Let's say we live in a community with 50 people total, and we figure that, within the next few decades, one of our houses will probably burn down. We don't know whose house it will be, but we're all at risk. None of us wants to bear the full costs of replacing a house. Therefore, we decide to share equally the cost of paying to replace the house that burns down. We might agree to split the costs of a new house once one is destroyed, or we might agree to contribute monthly to a fund. That's insurance.

In the same community, we might agree to insure against the risks of premature death, unexpected car crashes, and unexpected health costs.

In real life, most people purchase insurance to cover their lives, homes, cars, and health. There are two main differences between real-life insurance and the insurance of our simplified example. First, insurance companies pool many more people, making it easier to calculate and manage risks. Second, insurance companies are managed by professionals who do the work in order to earn a living, just as you earn a living in your specialty.

For whatever reason, today some people demonize "profits"—earning a living—in the insurance industry. This is strange, for, as my friend Justin Longo has pointed out, few think it's evil to "profit" by selling food. Do those who decry insurance profits also demand an end to for-profit grocery stores? In a free market, profits drive a company to offer better products and service at lower cost. Profits are good. A company that does not profit goes bankrupt.

Unfortunately, there is no free market in health insurance. (Indeed, as (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Down-with-the-health-insurers-8102155-53146107.html) Tim Carney points out, insurance companies have been a major player in destroying the free market in insurance.)

Have you ever wondered why you purchase life insurance, home insurance, and car insurance on your own, but you buy health insurance through your employer? The reason is that tax policy has driven non-portable, expensive, employer-paid insurance. One consequence is that people do not buy long-term health insurance policies, as they do with life insurance. Lose your job, lose your insurance. This is the major reason why pre-existing conditions, which so upset Obama and other politicians, have become such a serious problem. Politicians have almost completely destroyed the market for long-term health insurance.

Another consequence of tax policy is that health insurance has evolved into pre-paid medical care. People have no problem dropping $30,000 on a new vehicle, but if they're asked to cough up a $15 co-pay for health care, they think the sky is falling. This has largely undermined the very purpose of insurance, which is to protect against unexpected risks.

Imagine you purchased car insurance through your employer, and this insurance covered new auto purchases, oil changes, tire rotations, and everything else related to your car. What would be the result? People would be a lot less careful with their cars, and they would use a lot more car services. That's basically what has happened in health care, thanks to federal tax policies.

In the tiny non-employer-paid insurance market, politicians have placed so many controls on policies that they are dramatically more expensive than they would be on a free market. Moreover, because insurers are subject to ever-changing political controls, they can neither calculate long-term costs nor (for the most part) offer long-term insurance policies.

The purpose of insurance is to cover long-term, unexpected risks. Because of political interference, health insurance no longer meets either goal. Because insurance is tied to one's job and insurers generally cannot offer long-term policies, we get the problem of people developing medical conditions and then losing their insurance. Because politicians encourage pre-paid health care, "insurance" premiums are dramatically more expensive.

And yet, in the name of "reforming" insurance, various politicians want to continue to undermine the very purpose of insurance. For example, Pat Waak, chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=5383) wrote for the Denver Daily News, "Insurance companies should cover annual exams and tests that prevent illness. How about mammograms, pap smears, eye exams and other tests that will promote wellness?"

Why doesn't she demand that auto insurance cover tire rotations and oil changes?

Waak misses two obvious points. First, if you force insurers to cover routine, expected costs, the premiums will grow much more expensive. Because holders of this alleged "insurance" bear no direct costs for their health decisions, they are less thoughtful about how they use medical services.

The second point that Waak misses is that people can pay for preventative medicine without using insurance. This is what my wife and I do. Just this week my wife went to her physical and paid for it out of our Health Savings Account. Just a couple weeks ago I got blood work done at the local King Soopers pharmacy. (This blood work was free of charge, but I've spent our own money on other sorts of health care.)

Do people get oil changes or tire rotations even though those things aren't covered by insurance? Sure they do. Why? Because routine maintenance reduces long-term costs. The same holds true with health, if only politicians would leave people free to act on their own judgment.

Right now my wife and I pay $148 per month for high-deductible health insurance. This covers both of us. (Our insurance would cost less and cover us for much longer if there were a free market in health insurance.) We save money in a Health Savings Account, which we use to pay for routine expenses.

What Pat Waak wants to do is outlaw our health insurance. A likely consequence of Waak's policy is that my wife and I would no longer be able to afford insurance at all.

That is my biggest fear right now: if Barack Obama and Pat Waak get their way, the likely result is that my wife and I will go from having insurance we like reasonably well to not being able to afford insurance at all. That's not "reform." That's outright thuggery.

Comment by TJWelch: In a free market, some plans might still pay for preventative care on the premise that early detection and prevention may save them (the plans) even greater costs later on.
One of the options my employer offers is a "consumer-driven health plan" which is designed to put more control over cost choices into the hands of the insured--but even that plan covers yearly preventative care at no additional charge to the insured.
Auto plans don't pay for routine oil changes because routine maintenance probably doesn't have an appreciable impact on the probability of having to pay out on an accident policy at some point in the future, but medical preventative care may reduce the frequency and severity of catastrophic situations that would be covered under a healthcare plan.

Comment by Ari: If you want to pay the costs of routine care via your insurance premiums, by all means be my guest—just don't force me to do likewise. Of course, the goal of the insurance controls is to force some people to subsidize, via higher insurance premiums, other people's "preventative" care. You're making a fairly large mistake by confusing the politically manufactured employer-paid system with anything like a free market. Most employer-paid insurance offers nothing like a real high-deductible policy, as tax policy encourages pre-paid care. My goal is to never, ever need to make a health-insurance claim. That's where my financial interests lie (as well as my general interests in staying healthy.) Of course, insurance companies should be free to offer high-deductible policies that also cover "preventative" treatment. But I doubt this would catch on in a big way in a free market. First, companies could simply require basic preventative care (such as annual checkups) as a condition of insurance. (Or insurance companies could simply send out routine reminders on the importance of preventative care.) Second, people who lack responsibility to get preventative care on their own probably won't be induced to get it just because it's pre-paid.

Comment by Ari: One more point: if health insurance companies are paying for preventative care, that care will necessarily cost more, if due only to the increased paperwork involved. After all, somebody at the insurance agency has got to review the claim and cut a check. I say to hell with that—I'd rather pay my doctor directly.

Comment by Mike Shaw: Regarding prepaid health care; In health policies that I sell for individuals you can add on a $35 co-pay plan that allows for ans extra 4 visits a year for an extra 16.50/month. The average doctor vists costs about $80 out of pocket so at for visits a year you saved 180 but it cost you 198!!!that's because it encourages unneccesary use! When it comes to meternity it is the same way. You will pay at least $6000 one way or another, through premuims or deductible or hospital bills. Even worse is maternity is mandated on employer group health so you are paying for it no matter what. Consumer Driven just means high deductibe and/or HSA plan with no co-pay so you make better choices with your dollars.

Comment by TJWelch: I didn't mean to imply that the current employer-paid system is a free market. I just used the consumer-driven plan as an example because it does have some choice-driven mechanisms and a component similar to a HSA.
Thinking through it some more, I suspect that the way true free-market plans would address preventative care is through premium reductions. Just as holders of life insurance receive premium reductions for being non-smokers, and property & casualty policyholders receive premium deductions for safety features in their homes & autos, so might health insurance policyholders receive premium reductions for providing proof of regular preventative care.

Comment by Ari: Yes, or insurers could also charge a base rate and extra rates for risky behavior, such as smoking, rock climbing, and drunk driving. Of course this would require periodic reviews. It also occurred to me that longer-term insurance could also steadily raise the deductible so as to keep insurance premiums lower. The assumption would be that people would be able to save more and more through an HSA, making a higher deductible more feasible. Currently, federal rules limit the deductible possible with an HSA. This is a mistake. Let individuals decide what insurance is best for them.

Should Politicians Force Insurers to Ignore Pre-existing Conditions?

August 20, 2009

Should a life insurance company "discriminate against" an 80 year old smoker with lung cancer by declining to offer the same policy available to healthy 20 year olds?

Should a home insurance company "discriminate against" a home owner whose (http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2009/08/oh-injustice.html) house is on fire by refusing to offer a policy on that house?

Should a car insurance company "discriminate against" a five-time convicted drunk driver by failing to offer the same policy available to safe drivers?

Anyone who suggests that such "discrimination" is wrong should be deemed insane.

Yet, when it comes to the health debate, various politicians and pundits pretend it's perfectly sensible to force health insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions.

On August 15, Barack Obama (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_13131159) said in Grand Junction: "A recent report found that in the past few years, more than 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies because of a preexisting condition."

Democratic chair Pat Waak (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=5383) wrote for the August 19 Denver Daily News, "There should be no discrimination for pre-existing conditions."

But this is not merely a Democratic phenomenon.

Jeff Crank, Colorado director for Americans for Prosperity, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/in-health-debate-left-and-right-need-to.html) said at a July 28 rally in Denver that the "right kind of health care reform" includes "eliminating the pre-existing conditions exclusion."

And in a July 30 op-ed for the Denver Post, Republican Congressman Mike Coffman (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12940517) wrote that he wants to "require health insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions."

Such insurance controls are wrong because insurers and their customers have a moral right to voluntarily associate and create contracts, according to their own best judgment. Forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions violates the rights of both parties. The only proper role of government over insurance contracts is to prevent fraud and ensure fulfillment of contract.

Forcing insurance companies to ignore pre-existing conditions forces those without such conditions to subsidize others through higher insurance premiums. One consequence of such political controls is to price many out of the insurance market altogether.

Forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions means allowing consumers to wait until they get sick to buy insurance. By the same logic, a home owner could wait until his house was on fire or in the path of a tornado before buying an insurance policy. Likewise, a person might as well wait until he gets cancer or some other medical condition to get insurance.

Such controls destroy the very purpose of insurance, which is to enable a group of people to pool resources in advance to cover unexpected high-cost risks. (See my previous article, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/what-is-health-insurance.html) "What Is Health Insurance?") For instance, we know some of us will get cancer, but we don't know who will get get it, so we voluntarily agree to spread the risk of paying for treatment.

The logical consequence of forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions is to force everyone to purchase insurance, so that people don't wait to buy insurance until they get sick. That's what Republican Governor Mitt Romney advocated in Massachusetts, and that's what Democrats now advocate nationally.

As I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/what-is-health-insurance.html) argued previously, there is indeed a problem with pre-existing conditions with respect to health insurance. This problem was caused by political interference in medicine. Tax policy drove most Americans into expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance. Various insurance controls discourage long-term health policies. Politicians have mostly destroyed the market in long-term health insurance. Now, failing to take responsibility for the problems that they and their fellows caused, politicians wish to try to "solve" those problems by imposing yet more political controls on health insurance. The result would be only more distortions, more unintended consequences, and renewed calls for politicians to "do something" to solve the new problems.

The alternative is to restore a free market in health insurance, roll back insurance controls, and offset the tax-supported employer-paid system by allowing people to buy insurance through expanded Health Savings Accounts.

We need fewer political controls on health insurance, not more. We need more protection of individual rights in medicine, not more violations of our rights. If we value our health and our lives, we need liberty.

Comment by Steve: Ari, Perhaps I am missing something, but as a person with a pre-existing condition, I have felt the sting of discrimination. It would not bother me if the discrimination had been in the form of a higher premium because, after all, I am a higher risk. What I found unfair is that I was DENIED coverage altogether by the corporate insurers. I was, therefore, forced into Cover Colorado, the state run insurance system. It upset me tremendously that I had to do so. While I totally disagree with the idea of government-run health care, there needs to be some legal provision stating that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be totally denied coverage.

Comment by Ari: Steve, as much as I sympathize with your plight, you're totally wrong. Politicians should not violate the contract rights of insurance companies and their customers. Please notice that I did NOT defend the status quo, but instead indicated how political controls have mostly destroyed the market for long-term insurance. The same is also true of higher-risk insurance in the individual market. Just as the elderly literally cannot buy private insurance because of Medicare, so those with pre-existing conditions today have often no individual option except for the government one. People with pre-existing conditions today are in quite a predicament. But don't blame "corporate insurers" for this problem—blame the politicians (and their stooges in business) who advocated the controls that mostly destroyed the long-term insurance market. I too am fearful that I might develop a medical condition, then my insurance company will decline to renew my policy. The basic problem is politicians have so distorted the insurance market that the sort of insurance I'd like to get—a guaranteed long-term policy—simply is not available. We're in a bad situation. But we don't improve matters by expanding the same sorts of controls that created the problems in the first place. Political controls are the disease masquerading as the cure.

Comment by Mike Shaw: I think you nailed it on this one!
From what I can see we don't have ANY major health "coverage" issues that need to be resolved, It's all contrived! The problem is that when people choose not afford health insurance do we really let them die when faced with life threatening health issues? And if we have some sort of resources for them how do we discourage it's use? Currently in Colorado we have CoverColorado.org, a pooled resource between govn't, private companies and individuals to provide health insurance to those "discriminated" against for having pre-existing conditions. They do require premuims and it's not super cheap as all of the participants are high risk but they do partially subsidize those making less than 50k. On top of that there are no pre-existing exclusions for medicare, medicaid and CCHP.org. Who's missing? It's only those that coose not have it, illegals and a few unemployed that decided not to take COBRA but probably qualify for public assistance. The onlty issue is bringing costs down and portability. Pre-Existing discrimintaion is a scare tactic they use to create hysteria. As you point out by deregulating it would solve most of the current problems!!

Comment by Ari: I basically agree with MIke. I would, however, encourage caution with the term "we." I'm all for voluntary charities to provide care to hard-luck cases. My dad helps raise funds for Shriner's hospitals, and various children's hospitals provide care at no charge to families. On a free market, doctors would be free to offer sliding fee scales. I am not opposed to temporary, transitional political programs to clean up the existing "pre-existing conditions" mess caused by political controls. But the goal should be a consistently free market, in which people are free to finance as much of other people's health care as they see fit, but in which people are never forced to do so.

Rationing I: Price Distribution Is Not Rationing

August 21, 2009

This is the first of a four-part series on rationing.
Rationing I: Price Distribution Is Not Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-ii-definition-and-application.html) Rationing II: The Definition and Application of Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iii-harm-of-conflating-price.html) Rationing III: The Harm of Conflating Price Distribution with Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iv-politically-controlled.html) Rationing IV: Politically-Controlled Insurance and Rationing

That the political health "reform" endorsed by Barack Obama and his supporters would entail rationing is indisputable. It is simply impossible to expand subsidized care and contain costs without rationing. For more on this point, see my article in the (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/rationing-60239-sola-obamacare.html) Colorado Springs Gazette, (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/19/obamacares_inevitable_logic_97937.html) John Stossel's article, or (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358233780260914.html) Martin Feldstein's piece in the Wall Street Journal. No serious supporter of politicized "universal" health care denies this, and various supporters openly brag about the fact as a virtue of their proposals.

In response to the criticism about rationing, advocates of politicized medicine routinely reply that the market also "rations" health care, so the debate is merely about which form of rationing is best. Many critics of Obamacare agree to the terms of that debate and proceed to argue that political rationing is worse than market "rationing."

But obtaining goods and services on an open market via the price system of supply and demand is not rationing at all. Claims that it is distort the language and obscure crucial distinctions between political rationing and market distribution.

Peter Singer is among those explicitly calling for health rationing. As (http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-irrational-argument-for-rationing-health-care/) Don Watkins reviews, (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html) Singer writes for the July 15 New York Times:

Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for. But our current system of employer-financed health insurance exists only because the federal government encouraged it by making the premiums tax deductible. That is, in effect, a more than $200 billion government subsidy for health care. In the public sector, primarily Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits, high patient copayment requirements, low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients and limits on payments to hospitals.

On this point the (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/17/give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death-panels/) Cato Institute's Jim Harper quite agrees:

Health care is a scarce good, so it will always be rationed. The core question is whether government should take the dominant role in health care rationing over from insurance companies, or whether reform should restore rationing decisions to patients advised by doctors.

(See my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/dr-schroeder-replies-to-grand-junction.html) July 12 article for an additional example and my preliminary reply.)

Price Distribution Versus Political Rationing

Let us begin by distinguishing clear cases of price distribution and political rationing. Suppose you walk into a department store and pay $20 for a pair of jeans. If the jeans had cost only $10 per pair, you would have purchased two or three pair, but instead you limit your purchase to one pair. If the jeans had cost $40, you wouldn't have purchased the jeans. Is that "rationing?" No. It is simply a consumer deciding which goods to buy, and in what quantities, according to price and ability and willingness to pay.

It is obviously true that the more money you make (meaning the more wealth you produce), the more goods and services you can afford to purchase. The wealthy may shop at high-end stores; I do a lot of my shopping at Target and thrift stores. So a free market definitely entails a method of distributing goods and services, and this involves a person's market wage rate as well as a person's shopping preferences. Put another way, market distribution of goods and services depends on the supply and demand of labor as well as of goods and services.

In no way does price distribution constitute "rationing." In contrast with the authoritarian distribution of political rationing, price distribution rests fundamentally on the rights of individuals to control their own resources and trade voluntarily with others.

Contrast the market system for distributing jeans with political rationing. What would rationing of jeans look like? One possible impetus for the rationing of jeans would be price controls. Let's say politicians declared that jeans could not be sold for more than $10 per pair. The obvious result would be a shortage of jeans; amount demanded would jump and supply would fall. So politicians might issue ration cards for jeans; say, one pair per family or person.

Let us turn to the example of gasoline. True, the supply of gasoline is artificially suppressed by anti-productivity "environmentalist" controls. But gasoline is not rationed; consumers choose how much of it to buy depending on its price and their preferences and willingness and ability to pay. If you find gas to be too expensive, you cut back on your driving.

Contrast the price distribution of gasoline with rationing. Last year I found my great-grandmother's gasoline ration card from World War II.

Flickr link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3843439008/

Flickr link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3842649349/

Flickr link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/37667371@N03/3843440278/

Here is part of the text:

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 [Office of Price Administration].

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. He must remove enough coupons to cover the number of gallons of gasoline purchased... The dealer is permitted to deliver gasoline only into the tank of the vehicle described on the front over 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 other 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.

Those who would conflate political rationing with market pricing simply are not paying attention to the real and vast differences between the two.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-ii-definition-and-application.html) Read Rationing II: The Definition and Application of Rationing

Comment by Anonymous: I think "politicized medicine" is the best descriptor, yet to describe the current and particularly the proposed system of healthcare. Most of us alive have never seen a truly free market.

Comment by Richard: Thank you for exploding Singer's idiotic and dishonest notion of rationing.

Comment by Shep: I'm not sure I disagree with Singer's notion of price as the rationing mechanism. In Thomas Sowell's book "Basic Economics," page 17, he has an entire section called "Rationing by Prices." When I decide not to buy the jeans, I think it absolutely is rationing, it's just that it's not political rationing similar to the gas booklet (brilliant find, by the way!). Of the various "rationing" mechanisms:
*Price
*Lottery (see Obama's tickets at the Grand Junction event)
*Bureacratic fiat (also see Obama's tickets at the Grand Junction event)
*standing in line
So with price as a rationing mechanism (non-political rationing), the decision of who gets the goods and who doesn't is more widely dispersed, and individuals, not gvmt bureaucrats, get to decide if they want to be of the group that gets the goods or not...but only if they pay the price. So if an individual makes rationing choices for themselves based on price distribution, why is that not rationing?

Comment by Ari: Shep, if you wish to read my series and respond to my arguments, please do so. At this point you have done nothing but invoke an authority (who happens to be wrong about a number of other things in that book).

Rationing II: The Definition and Application of Rationing

August 27, 2009

This is the second of a four-part series on rationing.
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-i-price-distribution-is-not.html) Rationing I: Price Distribution Is Not Rationing
Rationing II: The Definition and Application of Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iii-harm-of-conflating-price.html) Rationing III: The Harm of Conflating Price Distribution with Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iv-politically-controlled.html) Rationing IV: Politically-Controlled Insurance and Rationing

Rationing is defined by three essential characteristics. First, rationing means that some central authority distributes goods or services. Second, the property rights to the goods or services are usurped or not clearly defined. Third, under rationing recipients have some recognized claim to a portion of the goods or services. (Note: (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/index.shtml) Diana Hsieh, (http://www.westandfirm.org/) Paul Hsieh, and (http://www.patientpowernow.org/) Brian Scwhartz helped me to clarify my understanding of rationing.) A closer look at each condition clarifies the meaning of the term and its application to various examples.

Rationing involves some central authority. Price distribution does not. In the usual cases this is unambiguous.

What about a more complicated example of distribution under price ceilings that cause shortages? Under such circumstances, generally two outcomes follow. First, the quality of the price-controlled goods declines. Oxford's dictionary includes an example from 1892: "The most inferior goods in the market are called ration-tea and ration-sugar." Second, sellers who cannot sell goods or services at market rates must sell according to other criteria, and often this takes the form of personal favors or prejudices.

Ayn Rand discusses this example in her 1946 letter on rationing (see pages 320 to 327 of Letters of Ayn Rand). Rand argues that it is "counterfeiting" to claim that "apartments are not rented by harassed, hogtied landlords—but are 'rationed by favoritism.' Implication: a landlord has no right to choose the tenants of his own property, if there are more than one applicant."

The essential difference between such non-price distribution under price controls and rationing is that no central authority is involved in the distribution. An authority is involved in setting the price controls, and that is what unjustly disrupts market prices, but price controls in themselves are not an example of rationing.

The second characteristic of rationing is that property rights to the goods or services are usurped or not clearly defined. Under price distribution of gasoline, the gas is owned by its producer (or, later, the retailer), and a consumer's money is owned by that consumer. The two parties may voluntarily agree to a mutually beneficial exchange. Under rationing, the gasoline is treated in part as the property of the government, which replaces voluntarily exchange with authoritarian distribution.

This point has important implications for health insurance. Insurance is a contract; its buyers agree to pay a regular premium in exchange for coverage under certain conditions. No insurance policy promises to pay for any conceivable health expense. For example, under my high-deductible policy, my insurance company is not "rationing" care by declining to pay expenses under my deductible.

A car insurance company might not cover damage caused to a policy holder's car if the damage was caused by his drunk driving. A home insurance company will not cover damage caused by the policy-holder's arson. None of this is rationing.

An insurance company, for instance, may decide in advance to cover established cancer treatments but not expensive, untried new therapies. A consumer who agrees to this policy may not properly complain about "rationing" when the insurance company declines to finance the sort of therapy that is explicitly not covered.

The problem arises when insurance contracts are vague and subject to arbitrary case-by-case evaluations, a problem that I'll return to in Part IV of this series.

Under political rationing, some authority must make ad hoc decisions about the distribution of goods or services. The rationed goods may be distributed equally among the population or according to individual cases. Yet even "equal distribution" requires considerable refinement by the authority. Does every citizen get the same number of gallons of gas? Every family (and what is the definition of a "family")? Every vehicle?

In the case of health care, obviously an equal distribution of resources would be senseless. Some people never get seriously sick, others incur modest health expenses, and others need (or want) extensive and expensive health services. Thus, simple ration cards for health care wouldn't work. Instead, some authority must decide who gets what care, based on criteria established by the authority. For example, health care might be rationed according to what is deemed medically essential or necessary. When the rationing authority fails to ration with sufficient stridency, waiting lines serve the function.

In her 1946 letter, Rand defines rationing as "to distribute... by the decision of an absolute authority, with the recipients having no choice whatever about what they receive; it also means that all the recipients involved have an equal claim to that which is being rationed, and are entitled to an equal share."

Rand's definition entails the three characteristics discussed above; however, her point about "an equal claim" needs refinement. With food or gasoline, each person might be rationed the exact same amount. However, the example of food illustrates the problem with assigning an "equal share." Should a three year old infant get the same food rations as a 250 pound, hard-working man? That would be ludicrous. Rationing, then, involves not literally equal shares, but shares considered equitable according to some criteria. A grown man gets more food than a small child. A sick person gets more health care than a healthy person.

In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Rand describes the collectivized distribution of the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which institutes the Marxist doctrine, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (see page 661 of the hardback novel). One of the company's owners becomes its "Director of Distribution," who decides what everybody "needs," and whose "gauge was bootlicking." (page 667). However, insofar as the Director of Distribution attempts to distribute supplies according to need, she is rationing, though primarily on a case-by-case approach. Rand compares this system to the rationing of a global egalitarian system (page 669).

Nobably, employees of the company voluntarily remain in this system (though the best employees quickly leave). Thus, the rationing at Twentieth Century is crucially different from political rationing. Under political rationing, exit from the system is forbidden or forcibly restricted. One may join a commune that rations goods according to need, but so long as one joins voluntarily and remains free to leave, that is a fundamentally different situation than political rationing, which one is not free to exit. Political rationing is the major form and most important type of rationing.

While rationing involves an authority's ad hoc decisions, rationing does recognize that recipients have some recognized claim to a portion of the goods or services, the third characteristic of rationing. A king who arbitrarily hands out loot to his favorites acts too capriciously for his actions to be considered rationing, and at her worst the Twentieth Century's Director of Distribution resembled such a king.

The requirement of a recognized claim shows that charity does not count as rationing. A food bank that restricts recipients to a certain amount of food is not "rationing," for the recipient has no inherent claim to the food.

Food stamps (which are actually debit cards now) forcibly redistribute wealth. However, if its recipients are otherwise considered akin to the recipients of charity, then food stamps do not "ration" food by limiting the amount of handout that recipients get or the type of food that recipients may buy through the program.

Does rationing apply to a recent case from Oregon? (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=5517492&page=1) ABC News reported last year:

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

Jon Caldara (http://www.joncaldara.com/2009/08/health-rationing-is-real-so-are-the-death-panels/) characterized this as an example not only of rationing but of a "death panel."

The problem with ABC's account is that it counts the Oregon Health Plan as just another "insurance company." It is not:

(http://dhsforms.hr.state.or.us/Forms/Served/HE7210pkt.pdf) The Oregon Health Plan (OHP) is a state program of health care for people with low incomes. This health care includes services for medical care, dental care, mental health and substance abuse treatment. Depending on which benefit package you are found eligible for, OHP benefits may... [r]equire you to pay a monthly premium for your OHP coverage... Some adult clients are required to make a monthly payment for health coverage. (pages 1 and 9)

So did Wagner pay anything for her insurance premium? That is unclear. If she did, then she had some claim to the benefits. If not, then she was like a recipient of food stamps.

If, in a free market, Wagner had sought out voluntary charity, we would not call it "rationing" if the charity did not fund every conceivable treatment for her. No charity can afford to fund every conceivable request of every possible recipient. The difference between a charity and political rationing is that the charity has rightful control over its resources, whereas under political rationing the recipients have some sort of claim to an equitable portion of the goods or services in question.

Notably, if people are forced to pay tax dollars to support a program that provides benefits, then any government restriction of those benefits with respect to those paying the taxes counts as political rationing.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iii-harm-of-conflating-price.html) Read Rationing III: The Harm of Conflating Price Distribution with Rationing

Comment by blnelson: 1. It seems that the reason food stamps are akin to charity is that the recipients are not the ones paying taxes to support the food stamp program (so it is not their property rights that are being usurped); however, 2. I do not understand then the distinction between charity and rationing in the Oregon Health example: why don't the taxes (as well as the "premium") Wagner pays constitute forced support of the Oregon Health Plan, and along with her recognized claim to the benefits distributed by the central authority (Oregon State) meet the three part requirement for rationing?

Comment by Ari: As noted, not every recipient within the Oregon Health Plan pays a premium; some people get care without paying a premium. I do not know whether the woman in question paid a premium or not. Nor do I know whether she paid any taxes into the program. Notably, Oregon (http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/salestax.shtml) has no sales tax. I assume, then, that the Oregon Health Plan is funded through an income tax. In a welfare state, rights are not clearly defined, so such matters are often ambiguous. What if she paid $1 per month for her "premium?" That's a lot different than if she paid something closer to a market rate. It is clear that the Oregon Health Plan rations care. That is unambiguous. What is ambiguous—and this is an inherent problem with the welfare state—is the claim of some individual recipients to the benefits.

Bill Ritter's Campaign Director Smears Opponents

August 27, 2009

Governor Bill Ritter's Campaign Director David Kenney today smeared participants of local tea parties as "rabidly anti-government." The statement was part of a fund-raising letter sent by e-mail.

Kenney's dishonest and vicious smear campaign, which likens practitioners of First Amendment rights to diseased dogs, ignores the obvious fact that the overwhelming majority of tea party participants advocate government that protects people's rights and is limited in scope by Constitutional law.

See, for example, my coverage of the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-tea-party-ralliers-in-their-own.html) April 15 Tea Party in Denver, the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/july-4-tea-party-arvada-colorado.html) July 4 Tea Party in Arvada, and the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/meet-mob-longmont-protests-obamacare.html) August 7 health rally in Longmont.

If Kenney wishes to find real examples of people who flout the rules of just government, he need look no further than the former Democratic campaigner (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/08/colorado-democratic-party-hq-vandalized-dems-blame-hate-from-other-side/) arrested for vandalizing Democratic headquarters. If Kenney wishes to condemn some as "anti-government," he should look to criminals and anarchists, not peaceful protesters who advocate just government.

Apparently Kenney chooses to lie about tea party participants because he does not wish to engage their arguments.

Kenney also wishes to suggest that the only possible alternative to Ritter's leftist tax-and-spend policies of economic controls and corporate welfare is to be "anti-government." In fact, the proper alternative is to advocate a government that protects individual rights, including rights to property and voluntary exchange.

Following is the letter I (mailto:info@ritterforgovernor.com) sent in reply:

Dear Mr. Kenney,

Today you smeared me, a participant in various tea parties, as "rabidly anti-government."

In fact, I advocate government that protects individual rights, and I do not appreciate the governor's campaign staff smearing me for practicing my First Amendment rights.

I request that you retract your vicious and libelous statement and apologize for it.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

Comment by Patrick Sperry: Why am I thinking that, at best, you will get a form letter Ari?

Rationing III: The Harm of Conflating Price Distribution with Rationing

August 28, 2009

This is the third of a four-part series on rationing.
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-i-price-distribution-is-not.html) Rationing I: Price Distribution Is Not Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-ii-definition-and-application.html) Rationing II: The Definition and Application of Rationing
Rationing III: The Harm of Conflating Price Distribution with Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iv-politically-controlled.html) Rationing IV: Politically-Controlled Insurance and Rationing

Whether price distribution counts as a type of rationing is not merely some semantic dispute. Conflating price distribution with political rationing obliterates the crucial distinctions between the two. A system of property rights and voluntary association is nothing like a system of political control of goods and services.

Price distribution on a free market rests on the right of producers to their property. If you produce something, using your own resources and in voluntary interaction with others, you have the right to exchange your product with others as you see fit. Generally on a free market people exchange goods and services using money as the intermediary, according to the principles of supply and demand.

Political rationing means that some governmental agency assumes command of some set of goods or services, in violation of the producer's rights to the product and of the consumer's rights to offer a voluntarily exchange. Rationing entails collectivism in ownership.

In her 1946 letter (see pages 320 to 327 of Letters of Ayn Rand), Rand writes, "Rationing IS coercion, that is, orders, and nothing else whatever. The essential distinction of a free market, as against any other kind of system, lies in the absence of coercion and in the method of exchange by voluntary choice" (page 322).

She continues:

If we accept the idea that a free pricing system is a form of rationing, the unavoidable logical implications and consequences are as follows: if a free pricing system is a form of rationing, then every person living under it has an equal claim upon and title to all the goods produced. (To ration means to share; a free pricing system is not based on the idea of sharing anything; a rationing system is.) But anyone can see that under a free pricing system everybody is not getting an equal share of everything. Therefore, this form of rationing is not working well or fairly. Why isn't it? Because the rationing is done by private persons in their own selfish interests. What is the solution? Another form of rationing—which would be run by disinterested public servants for the common good of all.

Once the people's mind has reached this state of confusion, the rest is easy. The collectivists have won, because their basic premise has been accepted. ...

And here is the payoff: when the groundwork is ready, a collectivist says to the average American: "Don't fool yourself, brother. You've always lived under a system of rationing and always will. The only choice you have is this: Do you want to be rationed by selfish, greedy capitalists for their own private profit—or would you rather be rationed by a public authority who will have no motive except your own good and the general welfare?" (page 323)

Either people have the right to control their produce and to make voluntary exchanges with others, or their property is collectively owned and rationed by politicians. That is the basic choice.

What is amazing is that 63 years ago Ayn Rand anticipated the precise nature of today's debate over rationing.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iv-politically-controlled.html) Read Rationing IV: Politically-Controlled Insurance and Rationing

Rationing IV: Politically-Controlled Insurance and Rationing

August 28, 2009

This is the fourth of a four-part series on rationing.
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-i-price-distribution-is-not.html) Rationing I: Price Distribution Is Not Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-ii-definition-and-application.html) Rationing II: The Definition and Application of Rationing
(http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iii-harm-of-conflating-price.html) Rationing III: The Harm of Conflating Price Distribution with Rationing
Rationing IV: Politically-Controlled Insurance and Rationing

The Big Lie in the modern health policy debate is that the current system represents a free market and that our choice is between the status quo and more political controls. The modern system is emphatically not a free market, and advocates of liberty in medicine call for free-market reforms as the only just and practical alternative to existing and proposed political controls.

Not only do politicians spend nearly half of all health-care dollars today, but they extensively control the so-called "private" insurance market. Health care, and particularly health insurance, is already mostly controlled by politicians; proposed "reforms" such as those offered by Obama threaten merely to expand those controls.

Yet Obama repeated the lie, ironically, in the very sentence in which he accused his critics of lying. Obama (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13184399) said health policy "should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are."

Obama steadfastly refuses to acknowledge those who seek to reform health care by restoring free markets and individual rights in medicine.

In today's mixed economy, health insurance companies are neither entirely private nor entirely controlled by politicians. Thus, health insurance is not characterized by the price distribution and firm contracts of a free market. It is characterized by political distortions. This significantly complicates the question of whether insurance companies ration care and whether this rationing is political in nature.

Before turning to particular claims about insurance rationing, it is useful to briefly review some of the major political distortions of the insurance market. (Many of these points are covered by (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh.)

* Through tax policy, the federal government drives the expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance system.

* Because most people are locked into the insurance program offered by their job, there is very little market competition for health insurance.

* The federal government imposes (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Healthcare/wm2493.cfm) various other controls restricting entry into the health insurance market.

* State controls also impede a competitive insurance market.

* Because of the tax distortions, employer-paid insurance has moved away from real insurance (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/what-is-health-insurance.html) (see my previous article) and toward pre-paid health care, leading to exploding costs.

* Because politicians have driven "insurance" into pre-paid health care, today most people rely on a third party to pay for all or nearly all of their health expenses, rather than pay health providers directly for routine care.

* Federal and state politicians significantly control whom insurance companies must cover and which benefits they must finance. This again helps turn insurance into pre-paid health care, contributing to exploding costs.

* Because of political controls, some people wait to get insurance until they get sick, or they change to more costly insurance once they get sick. This drives up costs to insurance companies and premium payers.

* Because politicians have forced insurance into a pre-paid health model, insurance is increasingly used to pre-pay minor expenses but not cover (or not entirely cover) major ones. Thus, in some respects insurance has been turned on its head. Rather than cover only high-cost, unexpected costs, now insurance covers low-cost, routine care and not all emergency care.

* Because of ever-changing political controls at the state and federal level, insurance companies simply cannot offer long-term or stable insurance contracts. Stable contracts have effectively been outlawed. One result has been that insurance contracts have become partly vague and ambiguous. (See also my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/should-politicians-force-insurers-to.html) article on pre-existing conditions.)

* One consequence of the host of political controls on health insurance is that, to control skyrocketing and unpredictable costs, insurance companies have sometimes turned to capricious methods of rationing care. Insofar as they do so, they do so because they are, in effect, agents of political controls, not part of any free market.

Despite the fact that political controls have largely destroyed the free market in health insurance, Obama and his supporters use existing insurance as their foil to advocate more political controls.

Downplaying the many cases of overt political rationing of health care, such as (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/the-coming-ethical-crisis_b_221850.html) Jacob Appel describes, and ignoring existing political controls on health insurance, Obama and his supporters pretend that the way to overcome the partial rationing of the mixed economy is to adopt the total rationing of politicized medicine.

Of course, Obama is coy about the rationing his proposals would entail. On June 24, Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/Story?id=7920012&page=2) said, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

By August 11, Obama (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-healthcare-transcript-new-hampshire.html) was pretending that everybody can get all the "free" health care they could possibly desire, an impossible promise. Yet, rather than outright deny the rationing of politicized medicine, Obama tried to turn the debate by tarring the status quo with rationing:

The underlying argument I think has to be addressed, and that is people's concern that if we are reforming the health care system to make it more efficient, which I think we have to do, the concern is that somehow that will mean rationing of care, right?—that somehow some government bureaucrat out there will be saying, well, you can't have this test or you can't have this procedure because some bean-counter decides that this is not a good way to use our health care dollars. And this is a legitimate concern, so I just want to address this. ...

Another way of putting this is right now insurance companies are rationing care. They are basically telling you what's covered and what's not. They're telling you: We'll cover this drug, but we won't cover that drug; you can have this procedure, or, you can't have that procedure. So why is it that people would prefer having insurance companies make those decisions, rather than medical experts and doctors figuring out what are good deals for care and providing that information to you as a consumer and your doctor so you can make the decisions?

Here Obama conflates clear insurance agreements, by which consumers agree ahead of time which services insurers will cover, with arbitrary decisions by insurers to deny care in some cases. Thus, Obama attempts to treat any sort of distribution system, including the price distribution of a voluntary market, as "rationing." Only decisions that are ad hoc, and not specified by contract, plausibly count as rationing, and these are precisely the sorts of decisions driven by political controls.

An August 22 (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13181216) article by Michael Booth and Jennifer Brown of the Denver Post describes some examples of health-insurance rationing. The title of the article illustrates the strategy of Obama's "reformers:" "Health care reform advocates say insurance companies already ration coverage." The journalists write:

All health insurance plans, whether privately run for profit or financed by the government, rely on a structure where some services are not covered. From prescription drugs to experimental surgeries, patients face limits in a plan's fine print or from people paid to make choices in a process called "utilization review."

"No system is wealthy enough to pay for every single request that comes from doctors and hospitals," said Wendell Potter, a former national vice president with insurance giant Cigna who now argues in favor of sweeping reform.

"Insurance companies have corporate bureaucrats on staff who many times will deny coverage for something recommended by a doctor. It happens all the time, in the name of 'not medically necessary,' " Potter said.

The Denver Post article contains not a single mention of how existing political controls have fostered such problems, nor how true free-market reforms would restore competitiveness and accountability to health insurance companies. Instead, the "debate" is summarized as the (ill-defined) "rationing" of the status quo versus the rationing of Obamacare.

On a truly free market, health insurance companies would compete, in part, on clarity of contract (as Brian Schwartz suggested to me). Moreover, the government would resume its proper role of ensuring enforcement of contract and resolving contractual disputes.

However, on a free market, insurers and their clients have every right to voluntarily agree to terms. As with the fictitious Twentieth Century Motor Company, people could voluntarily agree to enter a system of rationing, such as one involving ad hoc decisions about medical necessity. Significantly, on a free market, people would also be free to exit such a system. No doubt practically everyone would prefer a stable, long-term, well-defined insurance contract—if only insurance companies were free to offer one. Such contracts would involve no rationing when insurers declined to cover care explicitly not covered by the contract.

Today health rationing is carried out by government agencies that control vast tracts of health care. To a minor degree, it is carried out by insurers acting under severe political controls. A free market features no political rationing. Any rationing in a free market must involve people voluntarily entering into contracts that allow it, and in such cases people are free to exit the system.

The advocates of politicized health care ignore the nature of rationing. They try to turn any sort of distribution into "rationing," and they ignore the fact that existing rationing in health care is caused by political controls. Their goal is to promote the notion that health care is collectively owned by the nation and properly distributed by politicians, rather than owned by its producers and properly distributed through voluntary exchange.

Those who value their lives, their health, and their liberty won't let such "reformers" get away with their distortion of the language or their political take-over of health care.

Comment by Harold: Thanks for this series on healthcare. "Rationed by Cost" is probably the most common equivocation employed by those who advocate state control of health services. Thanks to objectivist epistemology, I'm able to think in terms of principles and can see these slogans for what they are.

Hard to Escape Third-Party Health Payment

August 29, 2009

How entrenched is third-party payment for health care?

Consider a personal example. Recently my wife went to her doctor. She paid for the care at the time of service using funds from our Health Savings Account. She had to explain that, no, we did not want to submit the bill to insurance. She had to explain that, yes, she in fact wanted to pay for the service, at the time of service, all by herself.

So she paid the bill, and that's that, right?

Of course not. We just got a notice from our insurance company informing us that the doctor's office also billed insurance for the doctor's visit, despite the fact that my wife paid the bill at the time of service. So now we have to spend more time resolving the double-billing.

Apparently, the doctor's staff literally cannot mentally grasp the notion of paying for health care at the time of service.

Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups in Denver, Longmont, Colorado Springs

August 30, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WHO IS JOHN GALT?
SURGING INTEREST IN AYN RAND'S ATLAS SHRUGGED SPURS STUDY GROUPS

In response to record-breaking sales of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, readers will form study groups in Longmont, Denver, and Colorado Springs this fall.

Sales of Atlas Shrugged topped 300,000 for the first half of 2009, a 250 percent increase over that period last year (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23741&news_iv_ctrl=1221) (see http://bit.ly/1aT1r6). Readers see eerie similarities between the 1957 novel and recent events, particularly with government take-overs and bail-outs.

While Barack Obama said "I am my brother's keeper," Rand renounces such claims and champions the individual's moral right to his own life.

One participant of a summer group in Lakewood said, "The novel offers rich moral and political themes, and reading it during this 'interesting' period of our nation's history sheds light both on the novel and on the culture in which we live."

The Denver group, sponsored by the Auraria Campus Objectivist Club, starts September 15th.

The groups in Longmont and Colorado Springs, sponsored by Front Range Objectivism, start October 1st. These two groups assume that participants are already fans of the novel.

The groups will meet for twenty weeks from the fall through the spring. A person knowledgeable about the novel and Rand's ideas will moderate each group. For details see (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/asrg.html) http://bit.ly/BuuaJ

(http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/) Front Range Objectivism is an organization dedicated to understanding and advocating Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism along the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies.

Debunking Health Care Reform Myths

August 31, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090831/OPINION/908309994/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published by the August 31 edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Debunking health reform myths

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Advocates of Barack Obama's health proposals claim they want to debunk myths surrounding the health reform debate. We're happy to oblige.

Myth #1: Opponents of Obamacare are the ones creating myths.

True, some have made exaggerated claims about "death panels." However, rationing is indisputably part of any political health program. More subsidized health care leads to more indiscriminate use of the health system, which leads to skyrocketing costs. The inevitable "solution" is rationing.

If you think that those running a political, tax-funded health system will never deny treatment to those who claim to need it, then you are either a liar or a fool.

Myth #2: Opponents of Obamacare are "anti-health care reform."

A recent article in the (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/anti-health-care-reform-g_n_269920.html) Huffington Post claims that "opponents of Democratic health care legislation" are "anti-health care reform," which is nonsense.

What Obama offers is not "reform," but merely more of the same sorts of political controls that caused existing problems in medicine. Continued tax distortions promoting expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance. More political controls that jack up insurance premiums. Probably laws outlawing low-cost, high-deductible policies. More forced wealth transfers.

Real health reform means respecting liberty and individual rights in medicine. It means respecting people's rights to control their own resources and enter into voluntary agreements. Politicians should neither compel interactions, as through insurance mandates, nor forbid them.

The proper role of government is to enforce individual rights, which means to protect people from force and fraud and otherwise leave them free to lead their lives according to their own best judgment.

Real health reform means recognizing the individual's moral right to his or her own life. Obama's fake "reform" means politicians and their appointed bureaucrats telling people what to do.

Advocates of real health reform want expanded Health Savings Accounts with low-cost, high-deductible insurance, rolled back insurance controls, containment of health welfare, and tort reform.

Ironically, (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13184399) Obama lied in the very sentence in which he accused his opponents of lying, when he called for "an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are."

Don't let Obama get away with his outright distortion that the only alternative to the existing system is a more-politicized one.

Myth #3: Opponents of Obamacare are criminals, thugs, and mobs.

Early on the morning of August 25, two people smashed eleven windows at Democratic Party Headquarters in Denver. The windows were adorned with posters endorsing Obamacare.

Democratic Chair Pat Waak quickly lashed out: "Clearly there's been an effort on the other side to stir up hate. I think this is the consequence of it."

Clearly Waak jumped to conclusions to demonize critics of Obamacare. Unfortunately for Waak, Denver police caught one of the alleged perpetrators.

Police arrested Maurice Schwenkler, a Democratic operative, left-wing radical, and gay-rights activist. During the last election, a Democratic 527 group paid Schwenkler $500 to campaign for a Democratic state-house candidate. Who's "stirring up hate" now, Waak? (See (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/08/colorado-democratic-party-hq-vandalized-dems-blame-hate-from-other-side/) PeoplesPressCollective.org for details about the story.)

It is true that some Obamacare protesters have gotten overly heated at public forums. That happens among the left and right. It is also true that the vast majority of those who oppose Obamacare are thoughtful, peaceable citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Myth #4: We need Obamacare to give everybody health care.

Most Americans already have great access to the best health care in the world. The biggest problem is that, due to political controls that have squashed competition and jacked up premiums, many cannot afford health insurance.

As (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10449) Cato's Michael Tanner points out, of the roughly 46 million uninsured, 12 million are eligible for existing health welfare, 10 million are non-citizen immigrants, and "most of the uninsured are young and in good health."

Is it any wonder that some young, healthy people decline to purchase expensive insurance premiums through which politicians force them to subsidize the health care of others?

Americans understandably don't want to let people die in the streets without care. That's why we should expand Health Savings Accounts and roll back insurance controls—then more people could afford insurance without busting the budget. We wouldn't need nearly as much charity if politicians would stop interfering with people's ability to get health care.

Extensive health welfare programs exist now. Government spends nearly half of all health care dollars, especially through Medicare and Medicaid. Cover Colorado subsidizes high-risk insurance.

Ultimately, we advocate a return to voluntary charity, which remains a strong force in America even though political welfare has largely displaced it. If you think others should donate to a health charity, then persuade them, don't hide behind armed IRS agents and threaten to throw people in prison if they don't pay up.

We want everybody to be able get good health care. We want politicians to respect people's rights. That is why we reject Obama's health reform myths.

[Update: (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10484) Cato's Michael Tanner debunks a fifth myth, Obama's claim that "If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period." Among other things, Obamacare would outlaw high-deductible plans.]

What is a Christian Libertarian?

September 2, 2009

On August 28 the (http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/) Centennial Institute of Colorado Christian University sponsored a talk by former business professor Kevin Miller titled "Christians and Libertarianism." So what is a Christian libertarian?

Miller presented two basic, conflicting views without revealing which view he personally endorses. One view is that Christians should seek to enforce religious morals by force of law, as by banning gay marriage. The second view, which Miller articulated at greater length and with more passion, is that Christians should advocate political liberty for all and take advantage of liberty to evangelize.

Notable is Miller's reason for endorsing liberty. I believe an individual needs liberty in order to pursue his happiness, act on his own best judgment, and apply his reason to the task of living successfully. Such analysis was absent in Miller's presentation. Instead, the value of liberty for a "Christian libertarian" is that the state will not seek to control or inhibit religion, leaving the faithful free to advance religion.

Miller got himself into a number of problems, as by denying natural law and advocating abortion bans on the grounds that a fertilized egg is a person. But what most interested me was his view of "prudential" Christianity. (Unfortunately, I was not able to ask a question on this matter before the event formally ended.)

Miller argued that what was prudent in the age of Daniel is not prudent today. In Daniel's age, it was appropriate to serve a king. Now, the prudent Christian endorses liberty so as to further the Christian goal of converting others to the faith. Miller also pointed out that American culture is currently "unregenerated," meaning largely not under Christian influence.

But what does that entail for the future of liberty if Christians manage to "regenerate" the nation? Many of Miller's concerns focussed on possible ways the government might impede Christianity. But what if Christians solidly control the government? Those concerns disappear. Would it not then be "prudent" for Christians to advocate government enforcement of strictly religious convictions? Miller offered no answer to this.

Nor did Miller answer the most powerful rebuttal to "Christian libertarianism," which is that, by appealing to faith for ultimate truths, Christians place those truths beyond human reason and into the hands of some authority. When an authority decides ultimate matters of truth and morality, the logical conclusion is an authoritarian political system.

Liberty ultimately depends on the independent reasoning mind and on independently pursued values. We can discover objective truths about our world and about right and wrong, we can apply our knowledge in the pursuit of our values, and we can seek to persuade others through rational argument. The proper role of government, in this view, is to protect our liberty to think and to act, protect us from the initiation of force, and otherwise leave us free to go about our own lives.

Comment by Crimson Wife: Did the speaker mention the Christian belief in free will as justification for a libertarian political ideology? That's the strongest argument IMHO for "Christian libertarianism". Christians should advocate for liberty because God gave everyone free will to choose his/her own path in life. Regardless of whether or not Christians "regenerate" the U.S., it is not for the civil authorities to be the morality police. God wants each of us to do the right thing, but we are free to make our own choices.

Comment by Ari: The argument about free will (which, incidentally, many Christians have rejected) does not imply or lead to political liberty. All free will says is that, even if Christians force people to obey Christian doctrines, that doesn't mean they'll develop pure hearts or get into heaven. That says nothing whatever about whether Christians should force people to obey Christian doctrines. Indeed, the speaker made the point that allowing people to freely sin may tempt others to fall away from God.

How Republicans Can Win On Health Reform

September 2, 2009

"Republicans suck." I had heard that Jon Caldara began his July talk to the Denver Metro Young Republicans (DMYR) with that line, so I figured I'd repeat it when I addressed the group on August 25 about health policy.

I really like the DMYRs. It is a vibrant and passionate group on the whole truly committed to liberty. If the Republican Party of Colorado is to have a future, it needs to start with people like this.

I explained that Republicans have advocated bad policies in areas of insurance controls and health welfare.

It was Republican Mitt Romney, for example, who passed insurance mandates in Massachusetts, which the Democrats have now worked into their "reform" bill. I drew on the (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp) article by Dr. Paul Hsieh for The Objective Standard on the matter.

(http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_cannon9_08-09-09_73F9ICH_v9.3f8e6eb.html) Michael Cannon has also written about the failures of the Romney model.

I explained that mandated insurance is inherently tied to tighter insurance controls and expanded subsidies. Moreover, Romney's plan didn't address the underlying problems, particularly the high costs of employer-paid insurance (driven by tax distortions) and capricious insurance controls.

The result of this GOP scheme? Skyrocketing tax costs and premiums, a damaged insurance industry, more political meddling, and doctor shortages.

Next I criticized (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/beauprez-battles-liberty-in-medicine.html) Bob Beauprez's endorsement of mandated insurance and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rep-mike-coffman-wrong-to-demand-more.html) Mike Coffman's endorsement of insurance controls.

With respect to health welfare, I discussed Bush's costly Medicare prescription drug program, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/demints-health-handouts-violate-liberty.html) Jim DeMint's plan to expand welfare, and (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/steele-and-the-left-wing-republicans/) Michael Steele's endorsment of health welfare as a "right."

Then I turned to the positive portion of my talk. How can Republicans win on health reform?

First and foremost, Republicans must make liberty in medicine a moral issue. People have the right to control their own lives and resources, free from political interference. Republicans must answer the Democrats' challenge to address the moral argument. Republicans who try to make the debate all about budgets and cost are destined to lose.

Republicans must articulate the harms of decades of political controls in medicine. They must explain how tax distortions created the expensive, non-portable, employer-paid system. They must talk about how insurance controls drive up premiums and undermine a competitive, consumer-responsive insurance industry. And they must talk about all the ways that forced wealth transfers, via taxation and politically-controlled insurance premiums, drive up costs and reduce responsibility.

Finally, Republicans must advocate true free-market reforms. Expanded Health Savings Accounts would help offset the tax distortions driving employer-paid insurance. Rolling back insurance controls will restore competitiveness and bring down insurance rates. Tort reform will weed out frivolous law suits. And welfare reform will rein in expansions of various programs, control costs, and ultimately begin to move back in the direction of voluntary charity.

Many Republicans are trying to "me too" the Democrats on health reform by advocating more insurance controls and more health welfare. But is it not now abundantly obvious that Republicans cannot win on a Democrat-lite platform?

If Republicans wish to win on health policy and other issues—and if they want to deserve to win—they should start with (http://dmyr.net/?page_id=366) DMYR's five principles:

* "The best government is a small, Constitutionally-constrained one."

* "A strong national defense is... vital to the preservation of our liberty."

* "Capitalism is the only moral philosophical system."

* Individual rights and personal responsibility.

* The Rule of law.

Comment by Virginia: LOVE your blog site. We've hit a gold mine, in preparation for an upcoming local Congressman's townhall meeting on health care. (It only took three solid months of pressure for him to deign to speak with his constituents.) We do consult Cato's site, as well as the Heritage Foundation's, but you articulate the moral dimension of our opposition to government interference in health care. Again, thank you.

Free Exchange Should Set Insurance Premiums

September 3, 2009

Should health insurance companies charge people with pre-existing conditions or known health risks more?

(http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/08/25/charging-more-to-insure-the-unhealthy-is-unfair/) Lawrence Jones of Conifer wrote a thoughtful letter for the August 25 Denver Post arguing that higher rates are unfair for conditions beyond one's control. I thought Jones's letter deserved a full reply.

Jones writes:

Letter-writer William Hinckley (http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2009/08/20/president-obama-doesn%E2%80%99t-understand-insurance/) [see the August 20 letter] thinks that charging higher insurance premiums to people with pre-existing medical conditions is akin to charging higher house insurance rates to dimwitted folks who knowingly choose to live in fire traps. People don't choose to get diabetes. People don't choose to have genetic predispositions to cancer.

Those who knowingly make risky life choices, whether to live in fire-prone shacks or to smoke tobacco, should certainly pay higher premiums as a result of their choices. But why should the boy with leukemia, the woman with breast cancer, the young athlete with diabetes? Why should the innocent be punished for wanting access to health care just because they actually need it?

Jones's fundamental mistake is to ignore the rights of insurers and treat insurance as a collectively owned good. Insurance is a product sold on the market that properly belongs to its producers. Insurers have every right to set the terms of insurance policies, including rates. And consumers are free to buy an insurer's product or not. The government's only proper role is to enforce insurance contracts and prevent fraud, whether by the insurer or the consumer.

Politically controlled insurance rates violate the rights of both insurers and their customers. The key characteristic of free markets is voluntary exchange. A producer cannot sell a product without a willing customer, and a customer cannot buy something that no producer wishes to sell. Producers and customers have the right to reach mutually agreeable terms, free from force.

What Jones ignores is that forcing insurers to charge unhealthy people lower rates means that insurers must charge healthier people higher rates, or risk bankruptcy. The typical result of Jones's policy is that young, healthier, less-wealthy workers trying to get ahead in life must subsidize everyone else.

Jones, then, implicitly means that he wants politicians to force insurers to charge healthy people more. Such political controls are a big reason why insurance premiums cost so much today, and why both Democrats such as Barack Obama and Republicans such as Mitt Romney call for mandated insurance. Some young healthy people decline to subsidize other people's health through politically-manipulated insurance premiums, so they must be forced to do it, the reasoning goes.

Jones misses a number of other points as well. For example, he ignores the fact that politicians have effectively outlawed long-term insurance contracts, as I point out in a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/should-politicians-force-insurers-to.html) recent article on pre-existing conditions.

Of course insurers should NOT charge people with health conditions higher premiums—IF those people bought long-term insurance before they developed the conditions. But long-term insurance contracts, on the whole, simply are not possible in today's political climate. Real health reform entails restoring a free market in health insurance, so that insurers are more competitive, more responsive to customers, and more free to offer useful products.

The entire purpose of (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/what-is-health-insurance.html) health insurance, as I've argued, is to allow people to voluntarily pool their resources to protect against unexpected risks. If a risk is expected, such as if somebody knows prior to getting insurance that they have cancer, then the risk is simply not properly insurable.

Jones suggests that the "innocent" are "punished" when politicians do not force others to subsidize their care through higher insurance premiums. But this presumes that healthier people are somehow guilty. They are not. A free exchange between an insurer and a customer does not somehow "punish" a party outside that exchange.

Does this mean that people with pre-existing conditions and no health insurance cannot get health care? Obviously not. The idea that all health care must be funded through health insurance is ludicrous. The wealthy may fund their own health care out of pocket. The poor may look for voluntary charity, whether provided directly by hospitals or indirectly through charity groups. (Obviously today people have access to a wide array of health welfare programs. I favor gradually replacing welfare with strictly voluntary charity.)

Jones is also partly wrong about which diseases are impacted by personal behaviors. He mentions cancer and diabetes as examples. Yet both cancer and diabetes are often largely caused by one's choices.

The (http://www.diabetes.org/genetics.jsp) American Diabetes Association states, "Type 1 and type 2 diabetes have different causes. Yet two factors are important in both. First, you must inherit a predisposition to the disease. Second, something in your environment must trigger diabetes." What you eat can dramatically impact your likelihood of developing diabetes, as it can dramatically impact your ability to deal with the disease.

Likewise, cancer is partly genetically determined. For example, some women have (http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/genetic/) genes that make breast cancer more likely. Nevertheless, our foods, activities, and chemical exposures can dramatically impact our risks of cancer.

I have two general points to make about this. To the extent that disease is impacted by personal behaviors, it is a very bad idea for political policies to encourage damaging behaviors. Laws forcing insurers to fund pre-existing conditions reduce the incentive of people take care of themselves. The inevitable result is more disease.

The second major point is that one person's unluckiness does not impose some sort of duty on a more-lucky person. The person without a genetic predisposition to get cancer is free to donate funds to treat cancer patients but should not be forced, under threat of imprisonment, to do so. The proper purpose of insurance is to protect ourselves against unexpected risks, not to equalize luck after the fact.

Health care is not a right. It is not some collectively owned good to be distributed by political whim. Health providers and health consumers have a right to negotiate mutually beneficial trades and to donate whatever they wish to charity. It is that right which government must consistently protect, if we value or lives, our liberties, and our health.

Comment by Jason L: Ari— I agree that Mr. Jones has made all the mistakes you attribute to him. However, isn't his most fundamental error a failure to appreciate what insurance actually is? The basis for the price of insurance is risk, regardless of whether the origin of that risk lies in choice or circumstance. Perhaps if he understood that, he might go on to grasp that insurance isn't even the real issue in his desire to address the needs of "the boy with leukemia, the woman with breast cancer, the young athlete with diabetes." One who understands what insurance is cannot reasonably expect to "insure" against the possibility of a certainty. Then he might find himself face-to-face with the fundamental question at issue: Does he have a right to commandeer anyone's resources to satisfy his own perceived need to rectify the various "injustices" meted out by an indifferent universe?

Ordering a Blood Test

September 4, 2009

For reasons that probably won't interest the reader, I want to order a blood test that measures the basic cholesterol readings. My difficulties in ordering a test illustrate a major problem with our third-party health payment system: it largely shuts the patient out of the process.

First I called a lab that does not offer the blood test but that helpfully told me that the two main testing facilities in the state are Qwest (of which I was already aware) and Lab Corp.

So I started with Lab Corp. The first fellow I talked to was helpful, but he couldn't answer questions about specific facilities, so he sent me on to a general customer service number. There I got the number to the Broomfield facility.

The Broomfield office was basically helpful, except on two counts. First, for reasons that nobody could explain, Lab Corp requires a doctor's order to conduct any test. You can't just go in, as though you were an adult in charge of your own health, and order up the test of your choice. No, no, no. You've got to ask for permission to get tested. (I imagine this has a lot to do with liability nonsense.)

Second, the woman on the phone said she didn't know how much the blood test costs, nor would she figure it out for me. Moreover, she didn't have time for me to give her any "problems" over the matter. She was unfazed when I pointed out that every other business in the state can tell me what their services cost. (True, auto mechanics sometimes don't know the final tally until they discover the nature of the damage, but a blood test is the same every time, so you'd think they'd have a clear idea of the cost.)

So then I tried Qwest, which also requires a doctor's order. At least Qwest could tell me the price: $58 plus a $15 draw fee. The woman at Qwest did helpfully point out that "Any Lab Test" might be able to fill in for the physician on the ordering end.

It turns out that neither Lab Corp nor Qwest actually requires a doctor's order, as they claim on the phone, if you use a run-around method of ordering the test. (The first fellow I talked with at Lab Corp did mention this.)

(http://www.anylabtestnow.com/Find_Us.aspx#CO) Any Lab Test has two Colorado offices. You can go in, pay $49, and the office will draw your blood and ship it to a Qwest center in Kansas.

Or you can go to (http://prepaidlab.com/) PrePaidLab.com, which contracts with the local Lab Corp. You can order a "Lipid Panel" for $16.05 (plus a processing fee of $9.50) or a "Lipid Panel With LDL:HDL Ratio" for $43.65 (plus the fee).

King Soopers will also conduct an instant, "finger prick" blood test for $20; however, my wife's doctor lacked confidence in the "finger prick" test. I called Lab Corp back, and a representative confirmed that both of their lipid tests involve a full blood draw. The rep. said that both tests are equally accurate, though one provides more information.

Imagine how much better life would be if politicians hadn't pushed us into a third-party payment system for health care. (Obviously, I favor third-party payments when they involve (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/what-is-health-insurance.html) real insurance, but not when they involve routine care.) Health providers would actually tell us what they plan to charge us for their services. Doctors and clinics would be more responsive to patients.

While politicians have seriously damaged the market in health care, enough freedom is left that proactive consumers can still shop around and find services that largely fit their needs. We should expand that freedom, not further diminish it.

[September 8 Update: My wife used Lab Corp through PrePaidLab.com, and she got good, fast service. September 9 Update: Lab Corp had the results back the next day! That beats the pants off of Qwest, in our experience.]

Comment by Anonymous: I have used a place like Prepaid lab and they send me to Labcorp for my blood draw. Labcorp office is only open 5 hrs a day and you need to wait soo long. Because you are not their client, you wait and wait. Oucch, did I said it hurt. My friend told me to go to Any Lab Test Now. For my follow-up test I went to Any Lab in Cleveland. Nice place, not crowded, smiling nurse and she was talking to me, yes she treated me as a human being. I ended up paying $49 for my test and they gave me a $5 coupon for my next visit. I feel comfortable going to Any Lab Test because I know they will treat me with respect. I am not giving my name because both labcorp and prepaid lab has my name in file.

Comment by Ari: I wanted to note that I let through the above comment without being able to verify its authenticity. For all I know, it was submitted by somebody who works for Any Lab Test. Also, it's quite possible that service at the two companies varies considerably by location. I'll post a follow-up comment about any experience we have with either company. -Ari

Garden Meals

September 9, 2009

I was so impressed with our recent meals that I thought I'd photograph and post them. Shown are tomatoes and squash from our garden, fresh basil from our herb pot, and purchased meats, cheese, olives, pine nuts, balsamic vinegar, and olive oil.

Reid Errs on International Health Comparisons

September 9, 2009

Tonight President Obama will renew his pitch for more political control of medicine. One important part of the debate is how the U.S. compares to other nations. Recently the Denver Post republished an article from the Washington Post by (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13265319) T. R. Reid on the matter.

As my dad and I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/05/frenchhealth.html) pointed out (and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/in-health-debate-left-and-right-need-to.html) again), the U.S. outperforms various European nations by measures such as cancer survival and access to technology.

As is also (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-i-price-distribution-is-not.html) well documented, nations with the most severe political controls of medicine ration care (see also (http://www.patientpowernow.org/tag/rationing-health-care/) Patient Power). To take just one recent example, see the following (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html) article in the British Telegraph: "Sentenced to death on the NHS: Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned."

However, the fundamental choice is not between the current American system and some system similar to that of some other nation. The fact is that American medicine is already mostly controlled by politicians, and in that respect it already resembles the politically controlled systems throughout Canada and Europe. To the degree that American medicine fails, it fails because politicians have mucked it up. Where health care in other nations succeeds, that is largely to the extent that it retains some elements of freedom and borrows the successes of American innovations.

Reid definitely comes at the matter with the presumption that it's the government's job to ensure "universal coverage." It is not. Rather, it is the government's job to protect individual rights, including rights to offer and purchase health care and insurance on a free market, by voluntary exchange. The fact that government has violated rather than protected our rights is what has created the medical mess in which we now live. (For a historical survey, see the article by (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh.)

If government would protect our rights rather than interfere in medicine, health care would be better in quality, lower in cost, and widely accessible. It is ironically the political crusade for "universal coverage" and care that leads to skyrocketing costs, rationing, and widespread difficulties in getting good health care.

Part of Reid's confusion is to treat politically controlled insurance and health providers as "private." If politicians control something, it is not "private" in any meaningful sense, even if the ownership is nominally so.

With an eye toward Reid's mistaken premises, then, let's evaluate his arguments.

Reid helpfully concedes that U.S. health is hardly a free market:

In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.

However, Reid seems to think this counts as a reason for expanding political controls in the U.S.

Reid grants that Canadian health features waiting lines. However, he claims, "studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations—Germany, Britain, Austria—outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries."

Reid simply misstates the survey results.

Here's what the (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison--Access---Timeliness.aspx) Commonwealth Fund actually says, contrary to Reid's summary: "The U.S. patients reported relatively longer waiting times for doctor appointments when they were sick, but relatively shorter waiting times to be seen at the emergency department, see a specialist, and have elective surgery."

The survey also notes that the difference is partly attributable to the fact that some Americans lack health insurance, and this is primarily a problem resulting from political controls of insurance, which drive up costs.

It would have been helpful had Reid pointed out some of the other findings of the survey.

On the matter of doctor visits, the question is "Waited 6 days or longer for a doctor appointment (last time sick or needed medical attention." Australia came in at 10 percent of surveyed "sicker adults," Canada at 36 percent, Germany at 13 percent, New Zealand at 3 percent, the UK at 15 percent, and the U.S. at 23 percent. Notice that this question pertains to a patient's scheduling of a doctor visit, not necessarily the availability of doctors.

On the question of waiting four or more hours in the emergency room, only Germany beats the U.S.

"Waited 4 weeks or longer to see a specialist?" The U.S. comes in at 23 percent, compared to 57 percent in Canada and 60 percent in the UK.

"Waited 4 months of longer for elective surgery?" The U.S. stands at 8 percent, while Canada is at 33 percent and the UK at 41 percent.

All that said, such surveys are inherently limited in reliability. For example, people in different cultures might have very different ideas about when a doctor's visit is "needed." And people are not likely to try to see a specialist or get elective surgery if they think their attempts will be fruitless, so the U.S. might perform even better than the survey results indicate.

But, again, it is not enough just to compare the U.S. against other nations. We have to get at the underlying causes of problems in the U.S. and abroad.

Writing for (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135127.html) Reason, Shikha Dalmia points out:

The fact of the matter is that America's health care system is like a free market in the same way that Madonna is like a virgin—i.e. in fiction only. If anything, the U.S. system has many more similarities than differences with France and Germany. [A]part from England, most European countries have a public-private blend, not unlike what we have in the U.S.

Dalmia points out that government pays for nearly half of all health care dollars in the U.S. and "directly covers about a third of all Americans through Medicare (the public program for the elderly) and Medicaid (the public program for the poor)." The U.S. also forces emergency rooms to provide care without compensation.

Dalmia adds, "This is not radically different from France, where the government offers everyone basic public coverage, of course—but a whopping 90% of the French also buy supplemental private insurance to help pay for the 20% to 40% of their tab that the public plan doesn't cover."

Moreover, a significant minority of Germans "opt out of the public system altogether and rely solely on private coverage."

What about rationing? Dalmia points out:

Struggling with exploding costs, the French government has tried several times—only to back off in the face of a public outcry—to prod doctors into using only standardized treatments. In 1994, it started imposing fines of up to roughly $4,000 on doctors who deviated from "mandatory practice guidelines." It switched from this "sticks" to a "carrots" approach four years later, and tried handing bonuses to doctors who adhered to the guidelines.

Meanwhile, in Germany, "sickness funds"—the equivalent of insurance companies—have imposed strict budgets on doctors for prescription drugs. Doctors who exceed their cap are simply denied reimbursement, something that forces them to prescribe less effective invasive procedures for problems that would have been better treated with drugs. But the most potent form of rationing in France and Germany—and indeed much of Europe—is not overt but covert: delayed access to cutting-edge drugs and therapies that become available to American patients years in advance.

Cato's Michael Tanner has written both an (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10011) op-ed and a longer (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf) policy paper about international comparisons. He points out:

Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

In France, for example, co-payments run between 10 and 40 percent, and physicians can balance bill over and above government reimbursement rates, something not allowed in the U.S. Medicare program. On average, French patients pay roughly as much out of pocket as do Americans. The Swiss government pays a smaller percentage of health care spending than does the U.S.

In his (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf) longer paper, Tanner goes into more detail on the health policies of particular countries.

Reid also argues that American insurance, which he laughably calls "free enterprise," has higher administrative overhead than other countries. I do not doubt that this is true despite the fact that Reid is probably ignoring the relevant administrative costs elsewhere (such as tax compliance). But this is only true because American politicians have totally screwed up the insurance market, turning insurance into expensive pre-paid health care. (See my article, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/what-is-health-insurance.html) "What is Health Insurance?"

Finally, Reid argues that it's "cruel" if politicians don't force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions. I've addressed the matter in a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/should-politicians-force-insurers-to.html) first and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/free-exchange-should-set-insurance.html) second article. The upshot is that insurers and consumers have the right to enter voluntary contracts, and insurance controls create bad incentives and higher costs, leading to cries for more controls.

In general, Reid attempts to make his case by omitting the relevant facts.

Obama Wrong About Mandatory Auto Insurance

September 10, 2009

I watched (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_13302729) Barack Obama's address on health policy tonight on television at (http://www.libertyontherocks.com/) Liberty On the Rocks at the Denver Tech Center. Both NPR and Fox 31 sent reporters to cover the speech and the free-market response to it. I'll have more to say about the speech in coming days. For now, I want to correct but one of Obama's remarks:

"That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance—just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

It is simply not true that states "require you to carry auto insurance." Rather, you must buy auto insurance (or face fines) only if you drive an automobile on politically operated roads.

For example, Colorado's statute 10-4-619 states that "compulsory coverage" applies to "every owner of a motor vehicle who operates the motor vehicle on the public highways of this state or who knowingly permits the operation of the motor vehicle on the public highways of this state."

In other words, if you don't own a motor vehicle, or you don't drive your vehicle on "public highways," you aren't required to buy auto insurance.

It is indeed interesting that Obama sees a politically controlled industry as the model for health care.

Obama's proposal to force everybody to buy politically controlled insurance is not like the requirement to buy auto insurance for public highways. Under Obama's proposal, there is no escape and no exception. If you don't buy insurance that politicians and their appointed bureaucrats approve for you, you face hefty fines. If you want to self-insure, or if you don't like the politically-approved insurance, that's tough. You will be forced to buy it. Because Obama is all about choice, competition, and freedom. And two plus two equals five.

September 10 Update: (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/09/denvers_liberty_on_the_rocks_n.php) Wesword's Michael Roberts picked up on the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/npr-gets-liberty-on-rocks-reaction-to.html) NPR coverage of Liberty On the Rocks and also quoted this blog post. As I pointed out in the comments, this post made a delimited point quickly. I've written much more about (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/beauprez-battles-liberty-in-medicine.html) mandated insurance elsewhere.

Comment by Rationalism: Well, if you promise not to drive on public roads, you don't need to get auto insurance, right? If you promise never, ever, to visit a hospital without prepaying for any service you might need, then you don't need to get health insurance. That's the same thing. So when you get hit by a truck and need $100,000 of surgery to save your life, you agree to forego all care you can't afford. If you are unconscious, the hospital will have to wait until they have proof you can pay. And if you are disabled because you didn't get proper care, then all public benefits such as Social Security, foodstamps, etc. are void, since you could have been healthy if you bought insurance. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to force doctors to stand by and watch you die because you refused to pay your share of the community health care system?

Comment by Ari: Apparently, "Rationalism" (an appropriate screen name) has missed the fact that it's possible to buy insurance without being forced to do so. Why do some people decline to purchase insurance? The main reason is that politicians have jacked up premiums through a vast net of controls and forced young, healthy workers to subsidize others via expensive insurance premiums. Those controls should be rolled back. The federal government should also expand Health Savings Accounts, used with high-deductible insurance, to offset the tax distortion driving expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance. Next time, "Rationalism," try coming up with an argument rather than a straw man.

Comment by Anonymous: Isn't the larger issue that personal auto insurance is required only as it relates to injuring others? I.e., liability insurance? I'm not required to carry comprehensive/collision insurance if I don't want to. I only need liability insurance as a guarantee that I can protect others if I injure them. I might be misinformed. But in my ignorance, this seems a very inappropriate comparison. -Confused

Comment by Dale: Howdy Ari. This is Dale Reed from SepSchool. Was Googling "mandatory auto insurance" and was pleased to find your site. As you know I live in Washington State and I am not required to purchase auto insurance. I bought a $60k CD at the credit union and after some paperwork I am earning some interest instead of paying an insurace company $350 and increasing every year. Dale

Comment by Laura Davis: Its amazing that people (including the president) are so misinformed about auto insurance and how it works. A lot of people think that they HAVE to have full coverage too. Or they think you need equal insurance in each state.
A lot of people obviously need to read up more on auto insurance.
http://www.goinsurancerates.com/auto-insurance/which-auto-insurance-coverages-are-not-mandatory/

NPR Gets Liberty On the Rocks Reaction to Obama's Health Speech

September 10, 2009

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112702591) NPR reporter Jeff Brady watched Barack Obama's health address to Congress with members of the Denver Tech Liberty on the Rocks. He interviewed numerous participants and quoted three in his report.

Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty On the Rocks, explained why forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions runs contrary to the basic purpose of insurance: "The idea is that it's health insurance. And the whole concept of insurance is that you get it before you get sick, or before something happens to you. It would be the equivalent of not having any car insurance, hitting a tree, and then calling Geico and saying you want to sign up. It doesn't make sense."

(I've written a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/should-politicians-force-insurers-to.html) first and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/free-exchange-should-set-insurance.html) second article on the topic.)

T. L. James suggested that Obama's comments about tort reform won't amount to much. James told Brady, "Tort lawyers fund an important part of the Democratic power base, their funding base for their elections. There is no way that he's going to do anything that's going to turn them away from the Democratic party."

Finally, Orin Ray said he didn't think Obama's speech really changed anybody's mind.

Brady did a nice job with his brief report. However, I wish he had mentioned the more fundamental issues. The fact that Obama wants to force everybody to buy politically-controlled insurance is a huge deal, as is the fact that Obama wants to expand subsidies. Nor did Brady mention the political causes of today's problems in medicine, or that Massachusetts has already tried—and failed—to successfully implement Obama's key "reforms." (I discussed all of these issues with Brady.) Yet Brady didn't have much time for his portion of the report, and he was basically fair.

Comment by Sarah Smith: I heard the piece on NPR this morning about the viewing of President Obama's speech by your group. I disagree with Ms. Teresi's comments about pre-existing conditions. Many times these pre-existing conditions are chronic diseases such as diabetes or epilepsy. Insurance companies do not want to cover treatment for these conditions even if they are a genetic condition. Many times people must change their insurance due to a change in employment. The insurance offered by their new employer may not cover treatment for these conditions even if the patient had insurance coverage before. My example of this is my sister. She has epilepsy and must take medication for the rest of her life to prevent seizures from occurring. She changed jobs about a year ago, and her new insurance company did not want to cover her medication for her epilepsy. The medication costs about $300 for a month's supply. AFter some fighting, she got the coverage, but there was much resistance by the insurance company. My sister was not someone seeking insurance after she was diagnosed. She had insurance when she was diagnosed with epilepsy, but she could not always keep that insurance due to changes in employment. I believe that insurance companies should cover pre-existing conditions for people like my sister, who did everything right, but unfortunately suffer from a condition that they did not create themselves.

Comment by Ari: Sarah, You're wrong about the proper solution to pre-existing conditions, and I've written on the matter in two articles: http://bit.ly/8sGvB and http://bit.ly/XV5bV The key problem you point out is that "people must change their insurance due to a change in employment." Why is that the case? Because tax distortions have entrenched expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance. One good approach to this problem is to expand Health Savings Accounts, used with high-deductible insurance that isn't tied to one's job. The fact that decades of political intervention in medicine created today's problems should make us a skeptical that more political intervention is the answer, don't you think? -Ari

Comment by Erik: I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis last year. All my medical bills drove me into Bankruptcy. The quality of my care has been outstanding. How I pay for it has been a challenge and frankly I haven't been able to pay for everything. I believe in letting competition work and getting the government out of market affairs. Its the competitive market that has created in large part all of our wonderful medications and quality of health care. Now I will admit there is plenty of greed out there and that is the ONLY area the government has any business being in is public safety and consumer protection from illegal, dangerous and predatory practices as defined by law. I blame government intervention for skyrocketing heath care costs that are becoming unaffordable, not health care providers or even insurance companies if they were left alone to operate in a legal competitve market environment you would see costs go down not up! Add more government you will see costs go through the roof! Where does that red tape and overhead come from? Our tax dollars! Do you want to pay for my next MRI? You don't need one but I do so pay up! Thats what Socialist Democrats want. Another wealth redistribution channel program this health care proposal from our friends on the left. Get government out and watch our costs go down. Get government involved more and watch ALL of OUR costs go through the roof. Its been proven time and time again but everyone wants "mommy and daddy" to fix it for them. Well mommy and daddy don't work for free. In addition mommy and daddy are dysfunctional alcoholics. (mommy and daddy are analogous to the government here in my argument).

Mandate, Not Public Option, Defines Obamacare

September 10, 2009

Rather than "hope and change," Barack Obama offers a warmed-over Republican policy—Romneycare—that has already failed in Massachusetts. The core of Obama's fake reform (described most recently in his (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_13302729) address to Congress) is not, as many conservatives suggest, the "public option." It is instead the proposal to force people to buy politically-controlled insurance. (For details on the Massachusetts fiasco, which Obama hopes to replicate on a national scale, see the articles by (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp) Paul Hsieh and (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10488) Michael Cannon.)

It is the mandate that ties together the various tenets of Obamacare, particularly insurance controls (regarding coverage and pre-existing conditions) and expanded subsidies.

Regarding pre-existing conditions, I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/should-politicians-force-insurers-to.html) pointed out, "Forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions means allowing consumers to wait until they get sick to buy insurance... The logical consequence of forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions is to force everyone to purchase insurance..."

Obama made the same point in his speech: "Unless everybody does their part [and purchases insurance under compulsion], many of the insurance reforms we seek—especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions—just can't be achieved." Just so.

Nevermind the fact that federal policies largely created the problems of uncovered pre-existing conditions.

Obama admits, "More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too." But why is health insurance (and not any other sort of insurance) tied to employment for most Americans? It is because of federal tax distortions that drive expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance.

As I've (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/should-politicians-force-insurers-to.html) noted (and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/rationing-iv-politically-controlled.html) again), the vast net of continuously changing insurance controls also helps to effectively outlaw stable, long-term policies that would remedy the problem of pre-existing conditions.

For more on this issue, please see (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/freedom-to-contract-protects-insurability.asp) Paul Hsieh's outstanding article, "How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability."

Obama wants to force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions and also force insurers to cover preventative care (which would, incidentally, outlaw my high-deductible plan and force my wife and me to buy dramatically more costly insurance). The inevitable result of such controls is to jack up insurance premiums (leaving aside Obama's fantasy that giving people more "free" health care will somehow curb costs).

Mandated insurance requires expanded subsidies. After all, you can't force somebody to purchase a product that they literally cannot afford. If Obama follows the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/demints-health-handouts-violate-liberty.html) lead of Republicans, his "tax credits" will in many cases be direct subsidies.

Obama hopes to cheat a little on his mandate, claiming "there will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage." (Whether you can "afford" this politically-manipulated "coverage" will be determined by the federal government.) Apparently Obama would subsidize these "hardship" cases through some combination of tax-funded welfare and tax-funded insurance.

With or without the "public option," the core of Obamacare remains the same: force everyone (or nearly everyone) to buy insurance, federally control what insurance people can buy (making it more expensive), and forcibly transfer more wealth to pay for health.

Obama Was Against the Mandate Before He Was For It

September 11, 2009

Back on February 26, 2008, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23354734/page/2/) Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for offering the same health insurance mandate that he endorsed just two days ago. (Thanks to Adam Eidelberg for looking up the transcript of the primary debate.)

Obama was right to question the mandate when Clinton proposed it. I've written more about the matter elsewhere (such as (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/10/beauprez-battles-liberty-in-medicine.html) here.) For now, as a prelude to the before-and-after Obama quotes, I'll summarize the main arguments against the mandate.

1. People have the right to choose which products to buy. It is immoral for politicians to force people to buy politically-controlled products.

2. The main reason some fraction of "the young and healthy" currently decide not to buy insurance is that politicians try to force the young and healthy to subsidize other people's health care through jacked up insurance premiums. This is especially true in employer-paid insurance, and it is also true for directly purchased insurance due to state benefit mandates.

3. Obama's pretense that the mandate solves the problem of forcing "the rest of us to pick up the tab" is laughable. The entire point of the mandate is to force some people to pick up the tab of other people's health care through higher insurance premiums. That's why Obama must force people to buy it. Without this coercion, Obama's other insurance controls would dramatically increase costs of premiums and thus the numbers without insurance.

4. Real free-market reforms would lower the cost of insurance premiums so that more people could afford it. Roll back controls that jack up premiums. Expand Health Savings Accounts so that people can buy lower-cost insurance (as well as routine care) directly with pre-tax money.

5. The main reason why some people rely on expensive emergency room treatment, rather than seek out less costly alternatives, is that the federal government forces emergency rooms to offer care without compensation. That policy is wrong, and it predictably introduces perverse incentives.

6. People without insurance do not necessarily force others to fund their treatment. Many fund their treatment out of pocket. Again the solution is to legalize insurance they can afford and want to buy.

7. Mandated insurance is expensive insurance. Obama wants to force insurers to cover more routine care, continuing the federal push to pervert insurance into pre-paid medical care. When routine care is "free" (or nearly so) at the point of service, patients have practically no incentive to monitor costs. Also, under a mandate special interests continually try to get more services covered, jacking up premiums, as has happened in Massachusetts.

With that background, let us turn Obama's position on mandates, then and now:

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23354734/page/2/) Obama then:

I have endured, over the course of this campaign, repeated negative mail from Senator Clinton in Iowa, in Nevada, and other places, suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out.

According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don't fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan.

The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody. It is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.

And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force, in some fashion, individuals to purchase health care.

If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption, as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.

Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.

The Democrats now have "indicated" how they would "enforce this mandate:" they would subject defectors to hefty fines.

While Obama claimed "the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years," he wasn't specific about how much he would subsidize individuals.

(http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_13302729) Obama now:

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need... [F]or those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill...

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those—particularly the young and healthy—who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek—especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions—just can't be achieved.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance—just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.

As I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/mandate-not-public-option-defines.html) noted, it is the mandate (not the public option) that defines Obama's current policy. Mandated insurance is morally wrong and destined to generate bad consequences. We do not need more mandates. We need more liberty.

Denver 9/12 Rally: Freedom Forever

September 13, 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNBqk7AIGiY

In my speech at the Denver 9/12 rally, I discussed the fundamental moral and political choices our nation faces. To illustrate these themes I described how the problem of pre-existing health conditions, and the resulting difficulties of buying insurance, is primarily a product of political controls, starting with tax-driven, non-portable, employer-paid insurance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2DITqFtTOQ

See (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/09/denver-9-12-rally-report/) People's Press Collective for the report.

Lu Busse, chair of The 9.12 Project Colorado Leadership Team, said the proper response to the cry, "health reform now," is "freedom forever." Of course, real health reform means reestablishing freedom in medicine, so the two goals are wholly consistent.

Chuck Moe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_Izq9YP14M

Amy Oliver:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEtGAvt9pSY

Jon Caldara:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tM5pe9mRWE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2grt_TUFA

Atlas Shrugged Relevant for Modern Times

September 14, 2009

The following article originally was published September 14, 2009, in the (http://www.timescall.com/) Longmont Times-Call.

Atlas Shrugged relevant for modern times

by Ari Armstrong

"Who is John Galt?" Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's novel first published in 1957, is more relevant than ever. Modern political interventions from the bailouts to health controls mirror events of the book, and the novel reveals innovative moral themes behind the politics.

In response to heightened interest in Rand's answers to today's moral and political crises, a local group that promotes Rand's philosophy, (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/) Front Range Objectivism, is sponsoring a twenty-week Atlas Shrugged reading group in Longmont starting October 1.

Sales of the novel have surged, surpassing 300,000 copies in the first half of this year, a 250 percent increase over the same period last year. The novel has been discussed recently by media ranging from the New York Times and National Public Radio to Rush Limbaugh.

John Allison, who turned BB&T bank into a stable and profitable powerhouse, has credited Rand's ideas for some of his success and called Atlas Shrugged "the best defense of capitalism ever written."

Meanwhile, respected philosophers such as Tara Smith forge bright new paths in moral theory and other fields based on Rand's work.

What is it about Atlas Shrugged that draws continued interest?

While the novel features detailed treatment of complex moral and political ideas, including a challenging speech by the story's hero, it is first a classic work of literature.

Rand draws rich, psychologically complex characters, including great champions of industry and the arts as well as despicable villains.

Which reader can forget the driven railroad executive, Dagny Taggart, or her passionate affair with steel titan Hank Rearden? Or Dagny's manipulative brother James? Or the struggle of James's virtuous wife Cheryl to understand her husband's viciousness? Or the three students and their beloved professor who vow to "stop the motor of the world" until its producers can work on their own terms?

On one level, Atlas Shrugged is about politics. Interventions such as Troubled Asset Relief, General Motors, "cash for clunkers," numerous offices of czars, and pending legislation on energy and health reflect the political controls of industry chronicled in the novel.

Rand eloquently makes the case that the proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, including rights to control one's resources and exchange goods and services with others voluntarily. Government should protect us against force and fraud and otherwise leave us free to pursue our business.

Yet Rand advocates much more than free markets. She explains why we need economic liberty to live successfully. We produce the things we need to advance our lives through reason, by understanding reality and then acting in the world to achieve our values. Houses, computers, foods, medical treatments, automobiles: all are produced by applying one's knowledge to the task of living well.

Reason requires freedom. One must be free to look independently at reality and pursue knowledge, wherever it may lead. To the degree that some resort to force, they shut down reason and impede productive advancement. To live as beings of reason, we must achieve political and economic freedom and a world in which people interact through persuasion, not force.

Rand pushes ever deeper, exploring the foundations of value. Rand's heroes are driven by a love of existence—a passion to understand the world around them and live successfully in it. It is ultimately this commitment to living that grounds all values, Rand's heroes discover.

The villains of the novel, on the other hand, seek to block out and obscure their knowledge, cheat reality, and ultimately abdicate their responsibility to pursue their lives.

Several participants of a summer reading group commented that, though they'd read Atlas Shrugged before, reading and discussing it in greater detail almost turned it into a new novel. It is a long book with a complex plot and set of ideas. The heroes develop over many pages and story-months, so Rand's meaning is not always obvious.

If you have never read Atlas Shrugged, now is the perfect time. If you have read it before, consider returning to the novel to mine its riches. It is a work capable of changing its reader—and the world.

Ari Armstrong publishes FreeColorado.com. For more information about the Atlas Shrugged reading groups, see (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/) FrontRangeObjectivism.com.

Restore Free Market to Address Pre-existing Conditions

September 15, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090914/OPINION/909139987/1062/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published September 14 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Restore free market to address pre-existing conditions

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

(http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_13302729) Barack Obama's most compelling examples of problems in health care involve insurers dropping coverage of people once they develop health problems. A related issue is the trouble some have in getting new insurance after they develop health conditions.

We agree that these problems of pre-existing conditions are serious and provide a compelling reason to reform health insurance.

However, Obama is totally wrong about the solution. The problem of pre-existing conditions is a consequence of decades of political controls of medicine. The solution is to roll back those controls and restore a free market, not introduce more controls and the worse consequences they will inevitably breed.

Obama and many others like to pretend that today's health insurance operates in a free market. It does not. Federal and state politicians have seriously undermined the competitiveness of insurance through gross violations of the contract rights of insurers and their customers.

Through tax distortions, federal politicians have driven most Americans into expensive, non-portable insurance funded through employers. Lose your job, lose your insurance.

Moreover, employer-paid insurance operates more like pre-paid health care than real insurance, again because of the tax distortion. Such "insurance" tends to cover routine, low-cost care but increasingly falls down when it comes to expensive emergencies.

By contrast, real insurance in a free market would tend to cover unexpected emergencies and leave routine care for direct payment, thereby keeping premiums much lower than what most pay now.

A major consequence of federally promoted, employer-paid insurance is to create problems of pre-existing conditions. If somebody gets sick and can no longer work, the person also loses health insurance and probably can't find another provider.

Politicians continually subject health insurance to changing controls, different from state to state. This effectively prevents insurance companies from offering long-term contracts, because insurers cannot know what political controls they'll have to deal with down the road. It also reduces insurance competitiveness, as a policy issued in one state is not valid in another.

Another way that politicians undermine competitive insurance is to outlaw insurance options that politicians and bureaucrats don't happen to like. In his article (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/freedom-to-contract-protects-insurability.asp) "How Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability," Dr. Paul Hsieh points out that political controls effectively prevent organizations such as church ministries from creating insurance.

"The only thing preventing individuals from creating their own contractually binding risk pools today is the government," Hsieh writes.

Yet, ignoring all the ways that politicians harm those with pre-existing conditions, Obama pretends that the fundamental problem is insurance profits.

In a free market, profit means that customers happily pay for some good or service. It is only outside of that market context that profit is bad. For example, a Mafia boss might "profit" by killing people, or a politician might "profit" by doing favors for special interests.

The fundamental issue is not profit versus non-profit, but freedom versus force. The problem with insurance companies is not that they seek to make a profit, but that they must operate as de facto agents of political overseers who call the shots.

On a truly free market, in which insurers and their customers were free from today's political controls, people would tend to buy insurance directly, rather than get stuck with the few non-portable plans their employer chooses for them.

In a free market, insurers would be free to offer more plans to more people, and consumers would be free to shop around, regardless of state boundaries. Politicians would no longer coddle insurers with protectionist controls and tax favoritism.

In a free market, insurers would compete on the basis of quality, security, and transparency of contract. Today, because of political controls, insurance companies face little real competition, and they would face even less under Obama's policies.

In a free market, insurance companies would be able to offer long-term policies that today are politically impossible.

The proper role of government is to protect individual rights, including the right of businesses and their customers to freely contract. The government's role in a free market is to prevent fraud and ensure fulfillment of contract. If government were doing its legitimate job, insurance companies could not arbitrarily drop people.

Almost the entire problem of pre-existing conditions was caused by political controls. Given that politicians have mucked things up so badly, the last thing in the world we need is for Obama to expand political controls of medicine.

We should instead fight for real freedom in medicine and health insurance, in which the problems of pre-existing conditions would be rare and easily handled through voluntary charity.

True, restoring a free market in the future will not solve all the problems of those who now have pre-existing conditions, no insurance, and ongoing, expensive medical care. Therefore, we support, as a transitional measure only, a tax-subsidized high-risk pool, such as Cover Colorado currently provides.

When it comes to problems of pre-existing conditions, the disease is political controls. The cure is more liberty.

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.

Muscle Versus Concrete

September 16, 2009

So I called the local machine rental shop and got a quote for $48 for four hours on the electric jackhammer.

But I drove down to the shop and found that $48 rents only the puny 35-pound machine. The big boy costs $60. Plus, I was annoyed that I had to rent the machine for a full four hours, when I only needed it for half an hour (plus commute, so still under two hours).

I figured, hell, for $48 I can do it myself with a sledge hammer. So I did.

Was it worth it? Well, per swing I didn't save too much money. (It took a lot of swings.) The middle was a lot thicker than I thought judging from the edges. But it's not like running a jackhammer is easy work. Plus, I saved an extra forty minute commute back to the rental shop, plus gas.

And, of course, I can say I broke up a concrete pad with nothing but a sledge hammer.

The Big Korkowski

September 17, 2009

Dude. Can a bald, edgy lawyer from Crested Butte win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate? I wouldn't bet the odds in Vegas. My early prediction is that Andrew Romanoff will take the Democratic nomination from Senator Bennet, then lose narrowly to Jane Norton in the general. But I've been wrong before with these predictions.

But at least Luke Korkowski is an interesting underdog. How many people running for Congress say they want to (http://www.luke2010.com/site/solutions/money/) abolish the federal reserve and run "legislation that gradually brings (http://www.luke2010.com/site/solutions/health-care/) Medicare and Medicaid to an end?" At least among major parties in Colorado, the answer is exactly one. But is Luke a force or a farce?

It's no secret that I like (http://www.frazierforcolorado.com/) Ryan Frazier. Unfortunately, he seems to think he can platitude his way through the nomination. I guarantee he will not be able to out-platitude Jane Norton. He might be able to express his platitudes more energetically, but that won't get him very far. For example, what in the hell does it mean to "give people a hand up, not a handout?"

It would be pleasant if the various Republican candidates would actually spell out their positions at some point. For example, Frazier seems to be trying to ride the fence when it comes to abortion. According to a news story republished on (http://www.frazierforcolorado.com/?q=campaignblog) Frazier's web page, "Frazier is pro-life on abortion." Yet (http://www.westword.com/2008-10-16/news/as-the-face-of-amendment-47-ryan-frazier-s-job-is-on-the-line/4) Frazier told Westword, "I am not a fan of abortion, but I struggle with whether it is the appropriate role of the government to place itself there." Still elsewhere, (http://www.thenextright.com/category/blog-tags/ryan-frazier) Frazier indicated that it's a matter of state's rights. So which is it, Ryan? Either you do, or you do not, wish to impose legal restrictions on abortion. I don't want to hear about your struggles, I don't want to hear empty code words, I want to hear what is your position on the issues.

At least I know, definitively, what Korkowski thinks about something.

I also wonder whether Frazier's heart is really in the race. I saw him at the (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/denver-912-rally-freedom-forever.html) Denver 9/12 rally. He was speaking to a few people on the edge of the crowd. I talked to him for a while. But I wondered what he was doing there. Where were the college kids with "Frazier For Senate" T-shirts handing out flyers among the crowd? If you're going to work a crowd, then for Reagan's sake work the crowd! If you're too worried about getting associated with cranks, then stay home or campaign elsewhere. But to go to a rally and chit-chat on the sidelines struck me as peculiar for somebody running for the U.S. Senate.

I had no idea who the bald guy standing on the chair was as he prepared to address Liberty On the Rocks Wednesday night. But then it struck me: "You're the bike guy, right?" By coincidence, just that morning I had read (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13345316) Lynn Bartels's article on the candidate's upcoming bicycle trip from Salida to Keystone.

I noticed the article only because Korkowski called it his "Free Colorado" tour. (This struck me because, as the reader may have noticed, my web page is called FreeColorado.com. There is now also (http://www.coloradofreedom.net/) ColoradoFreedom.net and (http://www.livefreecolorado.org/) LiveFreeColorado.org. But there is only one, original FreeColorado.com.)

Of all the possible election scenarios, here's one I consider particularly interesting. Josh Penry, desperate to overcome his "recognition gap" with Scott "His Wackiness" McInnis, successfully pleads with Frazier to run as his lieutenant governor—certainly a decent step up for a city councilman. This leaves open the Senate race for the establishment candidate to run against a scrappy underdog who doesn't shy from principles. I'm not saying I'm for that, but I do think it would be an interesting scenario.

I'm still not quite sure why Korkowski is running for U.S. Senate. I'm definitely no fan of his (http://www.luke2010.com/site/solutions/taxes/) national sales tax. But at least I know, specifically, what some of his positions are. And in today's political climate of gloss and glamor, that's worth a lot.

Comment by Patrick Sperry: Hmmm.... Ari? Almost sounds like you are getting some Habeneros down the spout... What was it? Three years ago when I said at my blog that we needed both you, and Gunny Bob to run for office? You play decent logic and moral fortitude. Gunny plays moral fortitude and emotional appeal on a scale, at least locally, that rivals Tom the liberty hater Mauser. Ari? Once again, I say this. You need to run for office, serious office not some position where you and the "chairman" go at it. I don't always agree with you. A quick look at google will confirm that. Young man, start going for the gold, and I don't mean all the perks. I mean moral gold. What you wrote is a very good editorial, and I commend you. Now though? Get off your butt and get where you can, in fact, make a difference! ARI ARMSTRONG FOR the SENATE! and no, I am not kidding young man!

Comment by Ari: Well, thanks, but that just wouldn't work for a variety of reasons.

Comment by Derec: Ari, thanks for being the ORIGINAL Colorado freedom blog! Derec (aka LiveFreeColorado)

Tomatoes Yum

September 21, 2009

Jennifer and I planted 48 tomato plants in the spring. I dried several batches of the produce in our handy (http://www.excaliburdehydrator.com/) Excalibur.

These dried tomatoes will be great in a variety of cooked dishes.

And we should do better next year, once we get the back yard in better shape.

Gazette: Obama's Republican Health Plan

September 21, 2009

Today's Colorado Springs Gazette published my op-ed, (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/health-62356-republicans-pretend.html) "Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare." (The print date is later than the online date of September 18).

I point out that the three core tenets of Obama's plan—mandatory insurance, forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions (and meet other political demands), and expanded subsidies—have all been endorsed by Republicans.

Meanwhile, the "public option" isn't a central element of Obama's plan, as the other controls alone effectively nationalize the insurance industry. (And, as (http://www.patientpowernow.org/2009/09/21/non-profit-health-insurance-public-option/) John Lott suggests via Brian Schwartz, something like the "public option" already dominates the insurance industry.)

(http://www.gazette.com/opinion/health-62356-republicans-pretend.html) Read the entire op-ed. And share it with your Republican friends!

Below is the complete text:

Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare

Democrats pretend that Republicans are just a bunch of obstructionists when it comes to health proposals. Meanwhile, Republicans debate minor aspects of Barack Obama's plan such as whether it subsidizes illegal immigrants and abortions.

The reality is that every key element of Obama's plan either came from Republicans or arose with Republican support.

Obama underplays this fact because it is an embarrassment to his self-defined legendary status. This is the man who told Congress, "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last." He wouldn't have sounded as impressive had he admitted, "My plan cobbles together various Republican-endorsed policies."

Republicans neglect their role in creating Obamacare because they like to pretend they support free markets and offer a real alternative to Democratic policies. More often than not, when Republicans are not "me tooing" the Democrats, they are taking the lead in expanding political controls of the economy.

The core of Obama's plan is the mandate: he wants to force everyone to buy politically controlled insurance. But this has already been tried.

Mitt Romney, former Republican governor of Massachusetts and presidential candidate, worked with Democrats to push through just such a plan. Obamacare is little more than warmed-over Romneycare.

What were the results? Last fall Paul Hsieh, a Colorado radiologist, wrote "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America." He found "the plan has increased costs for individuals and the state, reduced revenues for doctors and hospitals," and fallen short of universal coverage.

Last month the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon checked in on Romneycare. He found higher taxes, exploding costs for insurance premiums, longer waits to see specialists, and "the groundwork for government rationing."

Obama wants to replicate this failed Republican experiment on a national scale.

Another key part of Obama's plan is to force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions. This is again part of Romneycare, but other Republican leaders also endorse the idea.

Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman wrote for the July 30 Denver Post that he wants politicians to "require health insurers to cover those with pre- existing conditions." In his tepid response to Obama, Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana also praised the idea.

Of course, forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions incentivizes people to wait until they get sick to buy insurance, so the position amounts to an endorsement of the mandate, too.

What both Republicans and Democrats like to ignore is that politicians from both parties have created the problem of pre-existing conditions.

Tax distortions push people into non-portable, employer-paid insurance. Ever-changing controls outlaw some insurance options and make others impossible for insurers to offer.

Various federal and state controls undermine the competitiveness of insurance companies, making them largely unresponsive to the needs of consumers. And politicians price some out of the insurance market by forcing up premium costs with special-interest favoritism.

Rather than violate the right to contract for insurance, government should get back to the business of preventing fraud and enforcing contracts, preventing arbitrary denials of claims.

In addition to mandates and insurance controls, the third major aspect of Obama's plan, expanded subsidies, also came from Republicans.

Obama told Congress, "For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need." These "tax credits" in fact serve as outright handouts for some.

If Obama's plan sounds familiar, it might be because you read the same proposal from Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. His "Health Care Freedom Plan" proposes the "tax credit" subsidies that Obama endorses.

True, most Republicans don't support Obama's "public option." However, Obama seemed willing to deal away his public option in the spirit of faux compromise. Moreover, between the mandate and other controls, all insurance will be controlled by the federal government, anyway, so the public option isn't the central element of Obama's plans.

To their credit, some Republicans, including DeMint and Coffman, do have some good ideas. They support rolling back some insurance controls to make premiums more affordable and expanding Health Savings Accounts to let people buy insurance directly with pre-tax money. Tort reform is less important but still a useful idea.

Unfortunately, many Republicans seem deathly afraid to say what millions of Americans long to hear: that people have the right to live their own lives and pursue their values by their own judgment. That government's proper role is to protect individual rights. That people should interact through voluntary exchange, not force.

When elected officials are able to articulate the message of liberty, and mean it, we might have something better on the table than different flavors of political controls.

Armstrong publishes FreeColorado.com. He and his wife buy high-deductible insurance and pay for routine care with a Health Savings Account.

Getting Things Done Faster

September 23, 2009

What's amazing to me is that people spend so much time learning about "time management." My attitude has always been that people should quit screwing around learning about "time management" and just spend their time doing stuff.

Nevertheless, I am currently reading (http://www.davidco.com/) David Allen's Getting Things Done, as it comes highly recommended by various friends. My basic evaluation so far is positive, but I think most readers could save a lot of time by skipping much of the book.

Basically, the entire first part—the first 81 pages—boils down to two points.

1. To reach your goals, you need to define your goals and figure out effective ways to reach them.

2. You need a good way to process information related to your projects. You're getting all sorts of ideas and information coming at you, all the time, from many directions. Moreover, you do a lot of good thinking at odd times. You need a good way to capture and organize all this information and all those ideas, so that you can effectively use them, and so that you can work in a more relaxed, enjoyable way.

Part 2, which I've just started, explains specifically how to accomplish the second point. I really don't think I would have missed much if I had simply skipped the first part. It seems to me that much of effective time management is about figuring out what not to do.

Comment by Jason: Certainly, being efficient and organized regarding one's time and defining one's goals has benefits, but any individual or organization/business I have ever known or am familiar with who makes time management/organization/process and goal-setting their main focus generally fails to develop revolutionary ideas or set high enough goals because it's more important for them to achieve a goal--any goal--than to take the time and painstaking effort to think seriously about the fundamental principles (and then applying them to one's field of work, and then to a specific project) that will allow them to set the more ambitious and difficult goal that will lead to success and happiness. I see philosophy--one based on man's nature and this world--and not time management, as the most important tool in choosing and achieving the right goals. I agree with Ms. Hsieh's remarks on her blog a few days ago on the Fortune interview of Steve Jobs of Apple, in her agreement with him that having people "conform to process" and "enacting certain fixed means" are sure ways to kill productivity and crush self esteem--and a fixed time management goal-setting scheme seems to reek of that. -Jason G.

Comment by Diana Hsieh: Just to clarify... Jason, you might have noticed in that blog post that I thought Apple's praiseworthy method of the Monday meeting was similar to an important aspect of GTD, namely the weekly review. GTD is not like other time-management systems. It's not about dividing up your time or organizing your priorities. In fact, it's not a time-management system at all. It's about managing the workflow for all the myriad projects—particularly about outsourcing that to a reliable, effective system so that you can free your mind to think about the important things in life. I couldn't do a fraction of what I do without GTD. Also, philosophy is certainly necessary for the effective pursuit of goals, but it's hardly the end of the story. We need effective tools and methods to manage the very nitty-gritty, here-and-now of our pursuits and projects. Philosophy can't tell you how to manage that.

My Ideal Health Insurance Policy

September 23, 2009

Right now my wife and I pay $148 per month for high-deductible health insurance through Assurant. Our rate is locked in for three years.

I was just talking with an insurance broker in Boulder, and he mentioned that a three-year policy is actually unusually long. Usually one must renew every single year.

As my dad and I have (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/restore-free-market-to-address-pre.html) discussed, various political controls have effectively outlawed long-term policies.

Of course it's difficult to predict precisely what products and services would become available on a free market. However, I have a good idea of what sort of insurance policy I'd like to buy.

Let's start with some basic facts.

1. Real insurance (as opposed to today's politically mangled health insurance) covers unexpected, high-cost treatments, not routine or expected care.

2. As one gets older, the risks of contracting a serious, high-cost disease approaches 100 percent, and this risk (on average) increases dramatically over the age of about 60. As one (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2473922/Odds-of-dying) clever visual illustrates, one's lifetime odds of dying of heart disease are one in five, and the odds of dying of cancer are one in seven. Stroke is the third greatest risk, and then risks splinter quickly into many competing factors. See also the charts (page 5) from (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_06.pdf) National Vital Statistics showing "percent surviving by age."

The upshot is that, in old age, the risk of high-cost care goes up dramatically. At that point, treatment is more or less expected, so medicine becomes increasingly less insurable. On the other hand, in one's youth and middle age, routine care is the norm and high-cost emergencies are relatively rare, which is a great scenario for insurance.

What I'd like to do, then, is purchase a term health policy with a locked in rate till I'm about 60. I'd like the deductible to start high—around $10,000 annually—and increase every year until it reached about $50,000. The increasing deductible should enable rates to remain low even though health risks will increase somewhat over time.

So what happens when the term health policy ends? The point is to pay a low insurance premium and then save money to pay for care when I get old. Just to take an illustrative example, if you're 35 years old and you buy term health until you're 60, that gives you 25 years to save for old-age medical expenses. Let's say a high-deductible premium costs $100 per month, whereas a "pre-paid health care" premium costs $500 per month. Let's further say you pay $100 per month four routine care. That gives you $300 per month to save, which (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/simple-savings-calculator.aspx) adds up to over $200,000 at 6.5 percent interest. I think it would make sense to save somewhat more than that.

If the sort of insurance I'm describing became widespread (as could only happen if politicians stopped completely mucking up the insurance market), one consequence would be that the large majority of health expenses would be paid directly by patients. This would put patients back in control of their medical care, and it would give patients the incentive to stay healthy and look for good value for their health-related dollars. This would keep health costs under control while achieving good quality. Which is why most politicians won't even consider allowing it to happen.

Comment by Anonymous: Where does one get 6.5% interest these days? I also have my doubts that $200,000 is adequate to pay for "old-age medical expenses."

Comment by Ari: That's why I said I'd save more than that. Plus, I was just giving hypothetical differences between pre-paid "insurance" on today's politically-manipulated insurance and real insurance on a real free market. I think the real savings would be considerably more than $300 per month.

Media Panel: Follow Your Passion

September 25, 2009

Last night I joined a (http://www.tatteredcover.com/event/colorado-freedom-information-council-panel-discussion-0) media panel attended by Greg Moore and others. I recorded the event and took notes, so I'll have much more to say about it. Here, I wanted to reply to a question somebody asked that I did not answer last night.

A student said that a teacher of hers tried to scare her into not entering journalism. With print publications struggling, the jobs just wouldn't be available.

Greg Moore sensibly said, "If you're good, you'll get paid." He added that journalism will always be part of the culture.

Wendy Norris, (http://coloradoindependent.com/32042/good-night-and-good-luck) formerly of the Colorado Independent, said that all students should have a "plan B." I agree with that to a point.

Here's what I would have said had time permitted.

It is true that journalism is in transition now, with various print publications struggling and with people figuring out how to make journalism pay through the internet. But this is a transitory problem. Moreover, journalism continues to thrive in many quarters, and new opportunities abound.

For many, a variety of careers is consistent with their interests and goals. In such cases, having a "plan B" makes a lot of sense.

But if you're passionate about journalism, then for God's sake be a journalist! Don't worry (primarily) about the money: follow your passion! This life is remarkably short, so don't reach the end of it with such a fundamental regret as not pursuing the career you love.

Now, there are many different paths a journalist can take. Street news or commentary? Radio, TV, photos, or text? Large corporate publication or independent?

I've met people who love music, so they pursue music. They do not all make a living making music. Some work side-jobs. But you can be a journalist, even if you struggle financially and have to work a side-job for some span of time.

In your life you will spend most of your time working in your career. One's work, one's central purpose, defines one's life. Don't be battered around, aimlessly, by the winds of the times. Define your goals and go for them, relentlessly.

Fifty Ways to Leave Obama

September 28, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20090928/OPINION/909279992/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published in the September 28, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Fifty Ways to Leave Obama

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

"I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free / There must be fifty ways to leave your lover."—Paul Simon

If you're a leftist Democrat, you may have started to question your love affair with Barack Obama.

Secularists of the left probably noticed that Obama has ramped up George W. Bush's program of faith-based welfare, trampling the wall between church and state. Civil libertarians may scratch their heads at Obama's fervor to extend the PATRIOT Act, and he has hardly been a friend to gay rights.

Pacifists can't be happy that the military remains in Iraq while the war in Afghanistan flares. Anti-corporate Democrats may wonder why Obama advocates so many billions of dollars for corporate welfare and proposes that the federal government force citizens to buy (politically controlled) products from the insurance industry.

If you're an honest leftie, Obama's administration has got to seem in many ways like George W. Bush's third term.

Obviously conservatives dislike Obama's anti-energy policies and his plans to increase controls of medicine.

Thankfully, as Obama's inaugural honeymoon comes to an end, there's a new book out that offers fifty ways to leave Obama.

The book's authors, however, are so codependent on the Chosen One that they write as though Obama walks on water—when he's not changing it to wine. Thus, they titled their book, "50 Ways You Can Help Obama Change America."

But if you get past the title, you will find that the book is mostly about civic participation. Thus, it might be moderately useful regardless of your political goals. Ironically, the book may prove most useful for those fighting Obama's policies.

The book is written by Michael Huttner and Jason Salzman. Readers may recall that your younger author Ari and Huttner have had a couple of run-ins in the past. Last year, Huttner tried to go after the Independence Institute's Jon Caldara for saying "bitch slap" on the radio. Caldara was "demeaning women," Huttner proclaimed. (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/01/progressnowactionorg-used-bitch-slap-in.html) Unfortunately for Huttner, left-wing comments on his own web page used the same phrase, Ari pointed out.

Earlier this year, Huttner went after Michelle Malkin when some random yokel with a sign posed for a photo with Malkin at a rally. The sign inappropriately compared Obama with Nazis. Huttner also blasted gubernatorial hopeful Josh Penry for speaking at the rally, even though neither he nor Malkin had anything to do with the sign.

Again Ari pointed out that many leftists inappropriately compared Bush to Nazis, including posters to (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/02/huttners-hypocrisy/) Huttner's own web page.

The lesson in all of this is to adapt Huttner's political advice with some common sense, lest, like Huttner, you end up looking like a mean-spirited hypocrite.

Though we often disagree with Salzman, we find him to be a more measured and thoughtful activist, and he graciously sent Ari a review copy of the book.

In its policy advice, the book is utterly worthless. For example, on medical policy, the book with apparently straight text cites union statistics on the uninsured and bankruptcy—figures that have been blown out of the water by serious analysts. So just skip the entire first part of the book.

We were initially fearful that you can "help Obama" if you "plant your own garden" or "quit smoking." Neither of us smokes, and Ari and his wife planted 48 tomato plants this year.

But then we realized that Huttner and Salzman must be growing something special in their gardens if they take their own advice here seriously. "Eating food that's grown nearby eliminates pollution," these authors tell us. That's nonsense: growing a garden requires production of soil, seeds, tools, etc.

Notably, production and distribution of the book also generates pollution, but strangely we found no advice for publishing only ebooks, not paper ones.

Huttner and Salzman also claim to endorse "supporting small farmers." But doesn't growing your own food mean you're not supporting small farmers?

The key point the book misses is that, if you grow your own food, you don't have to pay taxes on your labor or the produce, and that is surely not helping Obama's (or Governor Ritter's) tax-and-spend agenda.

So let's move on to the serious advice. "Attend a leadership training." We agree! Some of our friends attend Liberty Toastmasters, People's Press Collective technology training, and the Leadership Program of the Rockies. Contact legislators and testify at hearings.

"Get news that's truly fair and balanced." For instance, read FreeColorado.com and (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) PeoplesPressCollective.com, along with this column

"Stage or attend a rally, media event, or protest." while the left obviously hates it when free-market advocates take to the streets, we fully endorse peaceful, civil protest.

We've followed a lot of the book's advice in fighting Obama's agenda of political controls. We urge you to do the same.

"Slip out the back, Jack / Make a new plan, Stan... Just drop off the key, Lee / And get yourself free."

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.

Light in the Digital Age: Media Panel

September 30, 2009

I joined a media panel September 24 at Tattered Cover in downtown Denver. There were a few sparks. I sat right next to fellow panelist Greg Moore, which was a great position to heap abuse on the Denver Post (which Moore edits). One guy treated the question period as his personal monologue time and finally was asked to leave with security.

Yet the panelists also shared much common ground, and the discussion was interesting. Here I recount much of it. (Due to the fact that I sat on the panel, I was unable to capture any photographs or video of the event.)

The event was sponsored by the (http://www.nfoic.org/colorado) Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition and moderated Thomas Kelley. The other panelists were Wendy Norris, founding editor of the Colorado Independent; Dominic Graziano, editor of the campus Metropolitan; and (http://adrienne.typepad.com/adrienne_russell/2007/01/bio.html) Adrienne Russell, a professor at the University of Denver.

The title of the event was ominous: "Darkness in the Digital Age: Has the Advent of Citizen Journalism, the Blogosphere, and the Demise of Newspapers Made Us Less Well-Informed?" When Kelley asked us for our comments beforehand, I send back a note, "I do not see 'darkness' in the digital age, but more light. The average person can much more easily obtain quality news and views than ever before in human history."

In case you're wondering how I came to sit on a panel with the likes of Greg Moore, here's what Kelley said in his introduction: "Finally we have Ari Armstrong, a writer of several prolific and eloquent blogs, some say veering toward the right. I find him to be thoughtful." This elicited a chuckle. So I was the token conservative (even though, as I later noted, I'm not really a conservative). At any rate I was delighted to be invited, and Kelley ran an informative and well-attended event.

Prior to the event, Kelley sent out some questions to set the tone for the evening:

1. What will become of the newspaper business model in the next five to ten years? Is there any hope for advertising as a means of supporting original reporting? Is public or non-profit subsidization the answer?

2. Is what we see on the internet from sources other than mainstream media really journalism? Are we entering a "post-journalism" era? If the industry of independent reporting is dying, where are the bloggers and the cable commentators going to get their content?

3. What do we need to keep the public service component (by that I mean digging out information on all subjects of public interest and reporting it according to a code of ethics that requires disinterest) of the newspaper business alive?

4. What is the cultural effect of a post-journalism era? Are we becoming more partisan, less broadly educated, and more exposed to un-debunked bogus information?

By luck of the draw, I spoke first. Following are my (slightly redacted) comments. In a follow-up post I'll continue with the comments of other panelists.

One of the questions that was asked of us in e-mail prior to the event had to do with what's going to happen now—it's kind of a "woe is us" scenario—what's happening now that many newspapers are going out of business. I think the title is "Darkness in the Digital Age." ... To me, I see a lot of lightness in the digital age. So that's kind of the theme that I want to focus on.

To me, there's been no better time, ever, to be a consumer of journalism. Today I read articles from the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Denver Post, Denver Daily, Westword, Colorado Independent, and I could probably name a dozen others if I'd kept track of that during the day.

At the click of a button you can read the best quality journalism in the world, which you simply couldn't do before [the interent]. I remember years ago, stringing a telephone line to my computer, and that was pre-internet. So now we have more opportunity than ever as consumers of news.

But then of course there's the problem of if you're a professional journalist. I guess we're shipping some more of ours off to Canada these days, from the old [Rocky Mountain News] positions. So there are definitely some transitional problems here.

I'm sure other people here know more about the industry. But I just wanted to mention a few examples of how other publications are solving these problems.

So the Wall Street Journal has in fact gone to paid, online subscriptions, and then they make their editorial content available for free.

The weeklies, Westword and Boulder Weekly, seem to be doing pretty well with a combination of online ads and print ads. But they have less printing costs, obviously. And the Westword has cut back, obviously, too.

Other things like NPR, Face the State on the right, Progress Now on the left (which does some journalism), operate by philanthropy. And this is great. So I tend to be free-market oriented, but to me voluntary charity, philanthropy, is a perfectly legitimate part of the free market.

I just looked up the Christian Science Monitor. They're going from a print publication to a strictly online publication. But they do have a subsciption-based weekly publication, and they also will charge you for a "Daily News Briefing" for $5.75 per month. So I don't know if that's going to work for them, but there are certainly people who are trying to find the balance between philanthropy, online advertising, print advertising [and subscriptions].

I'm going to jump now to one of these points that was mentioned prior to us coming on, which is: What's going to happen if the flow of journalism stops going from established newspapers to bloggers? I want to say that that whole premise is basically false.

There's not a one-way flow of information. There's a two-way flow of information. Now it's true that a lot of bloggers tend to focus on commentary, which means they're integrating news facts that they're reading around them, such as Mike Littwin might do at the Denver Post or the editorial staff might do. So it's a similar function.

But that's not the only function. Just like Mike Littwin might do original journalism, original investigative work, so bloggers might do the same thing. And often the journalism flow is coming back to the newspapers. So I'm just going to give a few examples here.

Last year, Katy Human of the Denver Post wrote an article about health insurance, and about the effects of children and health insurance, and the effects of not having any. And she mentioned these studies that prove her point. Well, the studies sounded a little bit fishy to me, so I sent her an e-mail and said, hey, why don't you send me what the list of your studies is. And she hemmed and hawed, and finally I sent an e-mail to David Kopel and Jason Salzman, because at the time they were the media critics at the [Rocky Mountain News], and finally she was persuaded to hand over her studies.

But then David Kopel wrote up a (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/08/kopel-too-often-a-crutch/) follow up for the Rocky, pointing out that none of the studies supported her point.

So this is an example I thought of bloggers and people on the editorial side sending feedback to the journalism side of the news.

I'll just give one more example. The Denver Post published an op-ed by a guy named T. R. Reid (again on the health policy issue, since that's what's hot). (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/reid-errs-on-international-health.html) [Read my critique.] And he completely misstated international comparisons on waiting times for elective surgeries. Now I know this because I looked it up. I did the research, I looked at the original sources, and I found the real stats. He simply misstated them. And he also omitted stats on emergency visits and specialists. Unfortunately, the Denver Post chose not to run my letter correcting that piece. But nevertheless the flow of journalism goes both ways.

I wanted to quickly run through a few examples of some real journalism being done by bloggers. And I also contribute to a group of vaguely right-wing, conservative bloggers called the (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) People's Press Collective. So I want to mention several examples.

If you want to hear what people are saying at some of these rallies—the tax rallies, Tea Party rallies—there's really no other place to look, if you want extended interviews with the actual participants, than my web page. [Listen to interviews from (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/denver-tea-party-ralliers-in-their-own.html) 4/15, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/july-4-tea-party-arvada-colorado.html) 7/4, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/07/pro-liberty-health-rally-draws-hundreds.html) 7/28, (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/meet-mob-longmont-protests-obamacare.html) 8/6, and (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/denver-912-rally-freedom-forever.html) 9/12.] Because I got my video camera, interviewed them extensively, and had a lot of them published online. The Denver Post maybe quoted one or two people in very short snippets (and that's just the nature of the medium). So that's one example of positive journalism.

When an economists named Thomas Woods came to Colorado to speak about his new book on economics, I looked up some of his older articles in which he blasted abolitionists and was praising antebellum culture. So I thought that was a little odd. I thought that was worth (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/04/woods-05-nothing-to-apologize-for.html) looking up as a journalistic enterprise.

Earlier this year, in response to a CNN report, I conducted my own (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/02/low-carb-food-stamp-diet-a-success/) "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet." Now this was more proactive, obviously—I was part of the story. But I thought it was a fun way to illustrate some of the facts surrounding the story.

In 2007, I solicited and published a letter from (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2007/11/mark-udall-replies-regarding-church-and.html) Mark Udall about the separation of church and state, which I thought was a pivotal issue in that election.

So you heard about the vandalism at the Denver Democratic Headquarters. Thankfully Denver police caught the [alleged] perpetrator, the name of Schwenkler. One of my friends, (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/08/colorado-democratic-party-hq-vandalized-dems-blame-hate-from-other-side/) Michael Sandoval, did some searching online and found that this character had been paid by a left-wing organization to do Democratic campaign work. So this was an important break in a big story.

I'll just give one more. A guy named Todd Shepherd, who actually works for the Independence Institute, recently found that (http://www.completecolorado.com/polisinvestment.html) Jared Polis, the congressman up in the Boulder area, was investing in medical tourism, meaning companies that specialize in taking people to other countries to get medical treatment. Which I thought was an interesting detail given the current national debates.

My main point here is that journalism works both ways. Independents and bloggers can feed back journalism to newspapers, and they can do their own original investigative reporting. And this is a great thing. So, while it stinks if you were an employee of the Rocky Mountain News (and I don't know if the Post is looking at any layoffs, hopefully not), in the world of independent writing and blogging, there's been an explosion of great content.

Comment by Anonymous: And the Woods event was nevertheless a packed and enthusiastic house. If you look into Woods' past you'll also find him supporting the wars you love so much. He has changed his mind on that as well, so it would be stupid and juvenile to dwell on that. Yes, he favors secession, but so did Lysander Spooner, who helped to bankroll John Brown.

Health and the Empowerment of Payment

October 2, 2009

The following article originally was published October 1 by (http://www.coloradodaily.com/your-take/ci_13434561) Colorado Daily and October 2 by the (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=5904) Denver Daily News.

What was the total cost of your last doctor's visit? If you're like most Americans, you have no idea, because somebody else is paying most of the bill.

Patients directly pay only about 14 percent of medical bills. The rest comes from insurance or government. This is the fundamental reason why health costs have skyrocketed. Patients have little incentive to monitor costs and look for good value, and sending routine expenses through third parties adds paperwork and administrative costs.

When somebody else pays the bill, many doctors think of their client as the insurer, not the patient. Likewise, insurers cater to employers, not you. The patient often gets cut out of the medical loop.

While Barack Obama pretends that insurance companies are at fault, the reality is that federal tax distortions drove insurance into the expensive, non-portable, employer-paid system. This tax distortion explains why Americans tend to use insurance as pre-paid health care, rather than to cover unexpected, high-cost treatments.

Even as Obama demonizes the insurance companies that federal policies have coddled and favored, his policies expand political favoritism. Obama wants to force you to buy politically-controlled insurance, on penalty of huge fines.

If you want to control your health care, you should advocate free-market reforms that expand medical competition, not more political controls. The experiences my wife and I have had with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and high-deductible insurance illustrate the benefits.

We pay $148 per month for high-deductible insurance. We buy it directly, not through an employer. It's not ideal insurance, but it's as good as we could find in today's politically stifled market. We save money for routine care through our pre-tax HSA.

I select my doctor based on who best serves my needs, not who my insurance company happens to like.

My doctor, who came highly recommended by friends, gives me a 20 percent discount for paying at the time of service. I payed $128 for my recent physical, an outstanding value for her high level of care.

Not only does my doctor knowledgeably answer all my questions, she's also sensitive to my budget. For example, she wanted to see blood tests for my cholesterol readings and glucose levels. Rather than order up expensive tests, she looked at my cholesterol readings I got at no cost at King Soopers just weeks ago. She suggested that I get follow-up blood work in three months.

After my wife's doctor's office ordered expensive blood work for her and then, against my wife's explicit directions, gave the lab our insurance information, I figured out how to get cheaper blood work directly. The King Soopers pharmacy normally charges $20 for a "finger prick" cholesterol test. Lab Corp draws blood for only $25.55 through PrePaidLab.com.

My doctor also recommended checking my fasting blood glucose levels a couple times with a home meter. I bought a meter at Walgreens on sale for $9.99, which was entirely discounted through a rebate. [Update: after submitting this article and neglecting to read the directions for the meter, I messed up the test and ended up spending another $9.99 for a new meter. I got the (http://walgreens.com/store/catalog/Diabetic-Supplies/TRUE2go-No-Coding-Blood-Glucose-Monitoring-System/ID=prod4199459&navCount=0&navAction=push-product) "no coding," smaller meter from Walgreens that's much easier to use.]

That is not to say that cheaper is always better. In 2006 I paid my Boulder dentist $925 for a gold onlay for a back molar. I could have paid somebody else less. But I love and trust my dentist, and his onlay is a work of art worth every penny.

In health care, as in much of life, you get what you pay for. If you advocate taxes and insurance premiums for politically-controlled medicine, don't act surprised when politicians and their insurance stooges call the shots. If you want quality care from your doctor, then fight for your right to pay your doctor directly for the routine care you receive.

Ari Armstrong is a guest writer for the Independence Institute and the publisher of FreeColorado.com.

Comment by hallinan: Ari - All great points. A lack of price discovery (in both accessibility and need for) is a major problem with the current health care system that we have in the US. The other major flaws which have driven up healthcare costs in the last decade have been poorly thought out state mandates, a lack of tort reform, and the lack of competition across state lines. Any "real" reform ought to focus here, not on additional regulations and further restriction of competition - Shawn

Introducing Jennifer Burns on Ayn Rand

October 2, 2009

Jennifer Burns, a history professor with the University of Virginia, has a new book out called Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. I don't have time to review the entire book at this time, so for now I'll merely make a few notes about Burns's introduction.

The first thing to note about Burns's book is that it is a thoroughly researched, scholarly book. It was published by Oxford University Press, among the most respected academic publishers in the world. Burns includes an eight-page "Essay on Sources" (pp. 291-298). Her notes consume another 45 pages, and her bibliography takes another fifteen pages. Clearly she's worked hard on it.

Unfortunately, Burns seems to have a superficial understanding of some of Rand's main ideas. However exhaustive her historical research, Burns is not likely to shed as much light on Rand as she might with a better understanding of what Rand was about. I'll address a few quotations from Burns's introduction in the order they appear. Please note that my purpose here is to point out some of Burns's missteps, so I don't review the great lines from the introduction. And of course I readily acknowledge that Burns may fill in some of the needed context further in her book. Again, this is only a first and limited take.

"Ideas were the only thing that truly mattered, [Rand] believed, both in a person's life and in the course of history," Burns writes (p. 1).

Rand certainly believed that one's explicit and implicit ideas basically set the course of one's life, and that similarly the dominant ideas of a culture basically set the course of a society. Yet Burns overstates the point. One's friends, one's romantic love, one's career—these are not ideas, they are values. And they are of central importance to a person's life. Ultimately, for Rand, the entire point of developing sound ideas is to help us achieve the values we need to live successfully. Burns's comment on the point is not wildly misleading, but neither is it a careful summary of Rand's beliefs.

On the second page, Burns writes:

Along with her most avid fans, she saw herself as a genius who transcended time. Like her creation Howard Roark, Rand believed, "I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one." ... The only philosopher she acknowledged as an influence was Aristotle. Beyond his works, Rand insisted that she was unaffected by external influences or ideas. According to Rand and her latter-day followers, Objectivism sprang, Athena-like, fully formed from the brow of its creator.

While again Burns's comments reveal grains of truth, on the whole they mislead. Rand correctly thought that she made important and original contributions to philosophy. But the notion that she thought she "transcended time" in the sense intended is silliness. She thought no such thing. All Burns is doing here is parroting unfounded smears she's heard others make.

Now, there is a sense in which Rand saw any authentic, consistent creator as timeless. Steven Mallory says of The Fountainhead's Howard Roark:

I often think that he's the only one of us who's achieved immortality. I don't mean in the sense of fame and I don't mean that he won't die some day. But he's living it. I think he's what the conception really means. You know how people long to be eternal. But they die with every day that passes. When you meet them, they're not what you met last. In any given hour, they kill some part of themselves. They change, they deny, they contradict—and they call it growth. At the end there's nothing left, nothing unreversed or unbetrayed; as if there had never been an entity, only a succession of adjectives fading in and out on an unformed mass. How do they expect a permanence which they have never held for a single moment? But Howard—one can imagine him existing forever. (page 452 of the small paperback)

However, we should also remember here that Roark purposefully entered the tutelage of architect Henry Cameron, and Rand herself found inspiration for the novel in the work of Frank Lloyd Wright.

Rand makes a similar comment regarding her own literary timelessness in her introduction to The Fountainhead. She quotes Victor Hugo: "If a writer wrote merely for his time, I would have to break my pen and throw it away." She writes that Romantic art "deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence." Rand then paraphrases Aristotle that art properly concerns itself "not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be." Notice here that, in a single page, Rand acknowledges three of her influences, Aristotle, Hugo, and the Romantic school generally.

What of Roark's comment that he inherited nothing? It is useful here to consider the context of that quote. Roark has just been kicked out of architecture school. The dean of the school is trying to talk (what he regards as) sense into Roark. The dean says (page 24), "Nothing has ever been invented by one man in architecture. The proper creative process is a slow, gradual, anonymous, collective one, in which each man collaborates with all the others and subordinates himself to the standards of the majority."

To this, Roark replies, "But the best is a matter of standards—and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of a new one."

Here Roark is saying that, rather than subordinate one's judgment to the standards of the majority, one should develop and stand on one's own judgment. He is further saying that, in architecture, he does not wish to follow in any established architectural tradition, but rather create buildings of his own, unique and fitted to their site. Notably, by this time, Roark has already found inspiration in the work of Cameron, who holds similar views on the importance of independent judgment.

If we wish to adapt Roark's insight to the realm of philosophy, we can say that one should not just blindly follow in some philosophical tradition just for the sake of belonging to that school. But, if by one's own judgment, one finds value in the insight of some school, then obviously one should integrate that insight into one's body of knowledge. Roark happily learned from the engineering tradition and adapted that knowledge to his own work.

The mere fact that Roark says he might "stand at the beginning of a new" tradition shows that Roark has nothing against tradition per se. In philosophy I can learn from Rand and other philosophers in the same way that in architecture Roark learned from Cameron and his engineering professors.

What about Burns's claim that the "only philosopher she acknowledged as an influence was Aristotle?" This has better grounding: in her "About the Author" note for Atlas Shrugged, Rand writes, "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle." Rand particularly praises Aristotle's "definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge." However, it is important to understand just how profoundly important Rand thought Aristotle was. Rand also appreciated and learned from thinkers like Aquinas, Locke, and Thomas Jefferson—whom she counted as essentially in the Aristotelean line. So, by acknowledging a debt to Aristotle, Rand is not cutting herself off from all subsequent thinkers; she is acknowledging Aristotle's influence on those thinkers.

Notably, Burns here overlooks Rand's further acknowledgment in the next paragraph to her husband, Frank O'Connor.

Beyond the realm of philosophy, Rand acknowledged the American movies of her childhood, the economist Ludwig von Mises, the authors Hugo and Dostoevsky, and many others. In her introduction to The Fountainhead, Rand blasts Nietzsche's ideas but finds value in him "as a poet" who "projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man's greatness."

Is Burns correct that Rand thought of herself as a genius? She denied it when her student and heir Leonard Peikoff called her a genius. Peikoff recounts her words on page 350 of The Voice of Reason: "My distinctive attribute is not genius, but intellectual honesty." In answer to Peikoff's persistence, Rand added, "One can't look at oneself that way. No one can say: 'Ah me! the genius of the ages.' My perspective as a creator has to be not 'How great I am' but 'How true this idea is and how clear, if only men were honest enough to face the truth.'"

Granting Rand's penchant for dramatic statements, Burns's talk about Rand thinking she was a genius who "transcended time" is, in the sense intended, untrue.

Next consider a strange paragraph from Burns on page 3:

[Rand's] indictment of altruism, social welfare, and service to others sprang from her belief that these ideals underlay Communism [etc.] ... Rand's solution, characteristically, was extreme: to eliminate all virtues that could possibly be used in the service of totalitarianism. It was also simplistic. If Rand's great strength as a thinker was to grasp interrelated underlying principles and weave them into an impenetrable logical edifice, it was also her greatest weakness. In her effort to find a unifying cause for all the trauma and bloodshed of the twentieth century, Rand was attempting the impossible.

But what is simplistic here is Burns's reading of Rand. First simply notice Burns's bias: she presumes at the outset that Rand's entire approach is basically wrong ("extreme," "simplistic," "impossible"). But Burns doesn't really illuminate Rand's basic approach. To begin with, we must know what Rand meant by "altruism"—and what she thought about mutually beneficial human relationships—to get any idea of where Rand was headed.

The deeper point is that altruism is an ethical doctrine (growing from certain metaphysical premises), and as such it is much broader than any political system. For instance, the altruism that Roark fights in The Fountainhead lies outside of the political system. Similarly, the altruism enacted at the manufacturing plant in Starnesville in Atlas Shrugged arises outside of any political program. While certainly Rand saw altruism as a central driving force of any collectivist political system, she attacked altruism (which she saw as inherently self-sacrificial) broadly, not merely as it pertained to politics.

Certainly Rand was influenced by her childhood experiences in Russia. But Rand's moral theories are not merely a product of her personal experiences or the historical era in which she lived, as Burns seems to suggest. Rand's unique moral theory of ethical egoism must be evaluated on its own terms as philosophy, not blithely dismissed as some rationalistic coping mechanism for childhood trauma.

Next, on the same page, Burns writes, "... Rand advanced a deeply negative portrait of government action. In her work, the state is always a destroyer, acting to frustrate and inhibit the natural ingenuity and drive of individuals."

Burns's statement here is simply false. Rand advanced a deeply positive portrait of government action that protects individual rights. She loudly praised the Founding Fathers of the United States. She vociferously denounced the anarchism of Murray Rothbard. She wrote an essay titled "The Nature of Government" in which she passionately defended the need of a rights-protecting government.

True, of her three main novels, two are set in periods in which the government has become corrupt and thus antagonistic to the requirements of human life. Yet Atlas Shrugged also features Judge Naragansett, who justly oversees the courtroom and studies constitutional law. In the Fountainhead, Roark's enemy is not a government bureaucrat but rather villains out to destroy his reputation and career. In the end Roark is vindicated by the government-run court.

On page 5, Burns writes, "Although [Rand] preached unfettered individualism, the story I tell is one of Rand in relationship..." This statement misrepresents Rand's theory of individualism, which has nothing to do with being a loner or avoiding relationships. Indeed, Rand's works are filled with deep friendships, passionate romances, and respectful business alliances. By individualism Rand means that the individual is the fundamental basis of moral value, not to be sacrificed to the collective. This sort of individualism incorporates healthy relationships with others.

Burns also writes, "For all her fealty to reason, Rand was a woman subject to powerful, even overwhelming emotions." But "fealty to reason," despite the common stereotypes of Star Trek, does not imply that one is cut off from emotion or experiences muted emotions. Indeed, Rand believed that only a devotion to reason as the means of cognition can give rise to a life of passion and joy. I think Burns's point here is that Rand could sometimes let her emotions get the best of her. Having watched some of her interviews, I agree that Rand could have a fiery temper. (While I share that tendency, I'm trying to overcome it.) But that's a different issue than whether "fealty to reason" conflicts with "powerful emotions."

Burns writes onto page 6 about Rand's system: "... Objectivism as a philosophy left no room for elaboration, extension, or interpetation..." Yet Burns's own bibliography disproves her statement here.

Burns correctly suggests that the social group surrounding Rand, led by the vicious and deceitful Nathaniel Branden, grew strange, unfriendly, and stultifying. I suppose that Rand would acknowledge as her greatest mistake getting tanged up with that catastrophe. The tendency Burns describes was deeply unfortunate. But it did not define Rand's broader social relations or her ideas. Thus, Burns is unfair to claim that Rand's "system" was "oppressive to individual variety." (And Rand did not advocate variety as such, but variety in the context of an individual's rational goals.)

Burns reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of Rand in the closing sentence of her introduction, which posits a "clash between [Rand's] romantic and rational sides." If Burns had any serious understanding of Rand's ideas, she would understand that no such clash is possible. Rand made some mistakes, but Burns doesn't capture their nature here.

If the introduction to her book is any indicator, Burns may have captured many important details about Rand's life, but she doesn't capture Rand the woman or the thinker.

Comment by mtnrunner2: I just got my copy of the book yesterday, I've read the intro, and I think you're right on the mark. My suspicion is that the book will provide useful details of Rand's life (some to be taken with a grain of salt), but that misinterpretations of her personality and ideas may blunt its effectiveness as an intellectual memoir. For example, Burns mentions Ayn's independent mind, but at the same time talks about her desire to be an authority figure to The Collective (the group she mentored), a juxtaposition which frankly made me laugh. Based on first-hand accounts, I flat out don't believe that Ayn played the tribal leader. I guarantee it's a case of Objectivist rejects—once again—rewriting history and Ayn's reputation for the worse. Rand and Objectivism are much more subtle and radical than many non-Objectivists realize. For example, how does one distinguish between Rand rejecting someone because she sees an entire world view in a single bad premise, and Rand rejecting someone because she allegedly wants to eliminate competition to her authority? You can't, unless you realize how differently and precisely she thought; something I don't think Burns fully understands. We will see, as the book unfolds.

Comment by Jeffery Small: Ari: A very useful review. Thanks. I have not yet obtained the book, and I would be interested to hear your further thoughts after you have had a chance to read the entire thing. Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small

Comment by Mitch: I enjoyed your review and critique. I would like to see what you have to say about the rest of the book. I have not read it yet, but even in this brief portion you refute the large majority of Rand's critics as a whole. --
Mitch

Comment by Richard: Thank you for presenting the intellectual implications of J. Burns introductory remarks to "Goddess of the Market". Your review confirms my worst suspicions. Those suspicions were based on the over-eager, painfully irrational, support that Burns work has received from anti-Rand bloggers I will never waste one cent to reward the author and publisher by buying "Goddess of the Market". I also doubt I will waste ten minutes reading it. There are better things to do.

Comment by AKunze: I enjoyed this sensitive critique of Burns' introduction and your accurate portrayal of Rand's views. AKunze

Comment by Ari: Well, obviously I purchased the book, and I look forward to reading it thoroughly at some point. I suspect there's a lot of value in it, even if it gets some major issues wrong.

Comment by Anonymous: Ari, Thank you. You make a number of excellent points. I will read this (or any biography of Rand) very cautiously. --Phil Coates

Comment by Anonymous: > Based on first-hand accounts, I flat out don't believe that Ayn played the tribal leader. I encountered her a number of times and spoke to her (rarely) and didn't see that at all. Often rather the opposite in private settings—bending over backwards not to try to intimidate, open to (polite) questioning of her views or analyses. -- Phil Coates

Comment by mtnrunner2: Phil said:
>[Ayn Rand] bending over backwards not to try to intimidate, open to (polite) questioning of her views or analyses I'm glad to hear it, because I just can't reconcile Rand's commitment to independent judgment with some of the negative things I keep hearing about her (i.e. demanding conformity). It just doesn't make sense. -Jeff

Comment by Anonymous: Coming attractions on the Mike Rosen Show, AM 850 KOA:
Friday, October 30th- Guest: Anne C. Heller, author, "Ayn Rand and the World She Made."

Comment by Michael Caution: Not sure if you're aware but Neil Parille is taking a backhanded approach to criticizing your comments by posting on Burns' blog. I try to give the benefit of the doubt in following his "arguments" but they are beginning to wear thin and he seems more of a troll trying to smear Rand just for the sake of it. I suggested he leave his criticism here directly, but I'm not sure you would want his ilk lurking around.

Comment by mtnrunner2: No doubt. Here's my last comment to Neil: http://tinyurl.com/yz9sesm

Comment by Jeff Perren: Mr. Armstrong, I'd like to recommend to you and your readers my lengthy review of Jennifer Burns' book. (http://shavingleviathan.blogspot.com/2009/10/goddess-of-market-not-so-worshipful.html) Goddess of the Market, Not So Worshipful If you regard this as an inappropriate use of your comment section, please feel free to delete my comment, with my apologies for the presumption. Respectfully,
Jeff Perren

Media Panel: Discussion Continues

October 6, 2009

The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition hosted a media panel September 24 at the Tattered Cover in Denver. Previously I transcribed my (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/light-in-digital-age-media-panel.html) opening comments and added a (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/media-panel-follow-your-passion.html) quick answer to a participant who asked whether she should enter journalism. Here I continue my review of the discussion.

First, though, as an aside, just yesterday I heard about the (http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/) Nevada News Bureau, edited by (http://elizabethcrum.blogivists.com/) conservative Elizabeth Crum (whom I met at the Sam Adams Alliance earlier this year). This service allows free, attributed reproduction of content. The (http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/about/) about page states: "We're launching this news service in part because the owners of newspapers and television news teams have, in many cases, cut back on statehouse reporting and investigative journalism which in turn has eroded their ability to be a true 'watchdog' for the voter and taxpayer. ... The Nevada News Bureau is a non-profit project of Citizen Outreach, a 501(c)(3) exempt organization." So, I don't know anything about that nonprofit, and I don't know what caliber of journalism the service will produce, but it struck me as an interesting model.

Now on with the media panel discussion. I'm pulling quotes from the longer recording, and again these quotes are slightly redacted to ease the transition to text.

Adrienne Russell added weight to my point that independent writers often conduct original journalism: "What are bloggers going to do if mainstream journalism dies [one of the questions asked]? I think anyone who knows anybody who is an online journalist knows many many cases of journalism stories that break into the larger news media landscape that actually originated in the blogosphere. And most often times, it's not even traced back to that after the first couple hours or the first day."

Russell continued:

I think what I want to try to focus on for my few minutes is.... [journalism's] role as a public service or a public interest. ... What is the future of newspapers? But I think what obviously we really should be asking is, what is the future of journalism, and its ability to facilitate, and further, and make for a healthy public discourse, in this democracy and all over the world. ...

I think those two questions go hand in hand. But recently there have been all these stats that have come out, specifically one recently from the Pew Foundation... report that says that web traffic to the highest ranked news sites has gone up 27 percent from 2007 to 2008. And so what does that tell us? I'm actually not a huge stats fan, I usually don't throw them around. I'm more of a cultural studies person. But what does that tell us? It tells us that people are still interested in news.

And also I recently read that the Columbia journalism program, the masters degree program, got almost twice as many applicants this year as they did last year, which also signifies something about our attitude, and our understanding, and our relationship with journalism in this country.

... I think that the question of the business model has to look beyond newspapers, and has to look at all of these great examples that are actually emerging and beginning to flourish. Like, whether or not you like the politics associated with them, or you think they could be sustained in this giant model, things like the Colorado Independent, the Huffington Post, Slate—there's all these examples of journalism that is flourishing, that is serious journalism. ... One of the better examples is ProPublica...

So probably what needs to happen is, traditional news organizations need to keep paying really close attention to what's going on with these successful models, whether they be for profit or not for profit. ...

Like Ari said, this is a time of innovation and great flourishing in terms of journalism, if not the journalism industry as we know it. And one of the reasons for this is that the new media technology, which is so often framed as threatening journalism as we know it, is creating these new possibilities for people to get involved in creating media. ...

So I think embedded in one of your questions was this idea of, are we just going to be inundated with this information that hasn't yet been debunked, and what are we going to do with it, and how are we going to... function without the filters that we've come to depend on. An the answer to this, to me, is that we're all, not only having an increased capacity to create media, but in that process we're learning how to assess it. So we're learning—we have to learn a higher level of media literacy. So, in that way, we're so much more engaged in the media landscape than we ever could be.

And the old model was great in certain respects, but I think we all know that it also privileged particular sectors of society, it propped up the status quo, it's failed us in major ways. In ways I'm not sure that is possible anymore, given the dynamic environment where people are actually contributing. ...

Dominic Graziano feared that his classes aren't preparing future journalists for new media. He also said he thinks more people are applying to graduate school "because there's no jobs." Russell said at least "they must have a faith that there will be [jobs available] some day."

Graziano continued:

The points that we're making about how journalism—decent, investigative journalism—can still be seen on the internet... I truly believe that. ... But, my problem as a student at least, is [this.] We can take this upon ourselves. Every citizen can take it upon themselves to look into whatever they believe deserves looking into, and write a story about it. The question is where does the money come from. As a blogger... you're not going to get corporate sponsorship. ...

I can spend weeks up on weeks researching a story, and doing interviews, and stuff like that, and post it up on my blog, and it can get picked up by CNN, or the Post, and they can spend eighty bucks as a freelancer. ...

The problem with getting rid of corporate journalism is you get rid of the possibility of a salary. And when everybody's working freelance hours on freelance budgets, we will see a decrease... What happens when we're not covering everything? What happens when we can't be at every [hearing?] in the courtroom? ... Where are people going to get this information? ... That's really what concerns me the most about the future of journalism.

Ari talks about bloggers being able to provide feedback to content that's being published. But when that content isn't being published, when bloggers are responsible for all that content, it's going to turn into very partisan arguments... People will visit the websites that either completely support what they already believe, or [are] completely against what they already believe, in order just to argue with it.

We need to focus a lot more on balanced reporting, fair reporting, in-depth reporting. And my fear, as a student, and as a journalist, is that as everything moves away from these media giants, is you lose the ability to pay somebody to do a good job.

I thought of the fact that newspapers of old tended to be overtly partisan, but I never saw the opportunity to discuss this point at the forum.

Wendy Norris followed:

... I think there is a crisis in our nation around critical thinking. And that hits on the editorial/journalistic side, and that hits on the readership side. People are too willing to believe whatever is delivered to them, whether it's in the newspaper, or a blog, or on television. And I think Tom's example of Justice Sotomayor is a very good example of that. It's very easy to find that speech online and learn that those remarks were taken completely out of context.

And I think that we talk a lot in this country about First Amendment rights, but there are also responsibilities with the First Amendment. And I think that if we're going to find a new way to deliver news content—and I'm a huge proponent of blowing up what we've got now and starting anew, because it just simply does not work in this era—then we need to be really honest about what it is that we're trying to do and what it is as news consumers that we want.

Norris said that even when working with a nonprofit organization, "I had to fight constantly to do the kind of investigative reporting that I thought was important for this community to have access to." She said that readers have a responsibility to support something better than fluff and sensationalism.

Greg Moore rounded out the introductory remarks:

I'm really surprised that so many people are out tonight. I think it's great, and to see so many young people in the audience is really heartening.

The first question was, what will become of the newspaper business model in the next five to ten years? Is there any hope for advertising as a means of supporting original reporting? And then the whole thing about public or nonprofit subsidization.

I don't believe, first, that we're in a post-journalism era. We are not. And I don't think we'll ever be in a post-journalism era. It may take on different forms or be done by a disaggregated sort of collection of people like what we're beginning to see now. But there're always going to be things happening that we didn't know, or that we're intensely interested in. We'll always be looking for people to help us understand what's happening.

In the next five to ten years, I think that newspapers will be still around. I think there's something about the authentication of an event that is really important. I'll just give you an example. When Barack Obama won the election, that was posted online. But people were lined up in our lobby to get a newspaper. Why? Because 100 years from now, would you rather have a printout from this blog or whatever, or would you rather have a 92-point headline that declares the election of the first black president? That's simple.

If your kid runs for 350 yards for the football game, do you want a printout that could have been manipulated or whatever, or would you want it in a newspaper? You'd want it in a newspaper.

So I think there'll be newspapers. I think we'll be smaller. I think we probably will come out less frequently. I think it'll cost more. I think the notion of being a paper of record, of trying to cover every city council meeting and things of that nature, will increasingly be left to bloggers and other sort of independent gatherers of news and information. ...

In terms of advertising being a means of supporting original [journalism]... right now advertising provides like 85 percent of our revenue. It's still a huge, huge, huge driver. It's a huge source of revenue. It's going to be probably for a while. But I think our survival—and when I say survival I'm not talking about the newspaper, I'm talking about our ability to do journalism—I think we'll have to shift to a different model. And I think that model is that the user will have to pay for the content that he or she consumes.

I don't think that the cat is out of the bag. I think that the record industry sort of proved that, the music industry sort of proved that you can change people's behavior. Napster, in the mid-1990s, everyone thought that would just sort of kill everything, and they put those people in jail, put them out of business, and now people pay for music. They do it differently—they don't buy albums anymore, they buy singles, but they still pay a lot of money for music.

So I think there's still hope for us, that we can sort of reverse this trend. As somebody said, I think the worst decision that was made by the owners of newspapers was to sort of be stampeded into giving away their content for free. But it doesn't mean that it's over.

In terms of public or nonprofit subsidization, I think it's still an open question. We're sort of like still the nascent stages of that. I stood on the advisory board of ProPublica, and I think that it's a really interesting experiment. We've published some of their stories. I think they do good work. But they look more like old media than new media. I think that's important to acknowledge.

I also think it's really sort of hard assess what the future's going to be like, because the people who work for ProPublica are some of the best old media print journalists ever. And so that whole thing about a firewall between the people who pay for the news operation and the people who gather the news operation is really scrupulously adhered to. ...

Second question is about the internet. Is what we see on the internet from sources other than mainstream media really journalism? I will say, yeah, it is. It's a different kind of journalism. But, when we put together our newspaper, it's a menu of things. While I would not necessarily describe everything that's being done by bloggers as journalism, I think it's content generation. And it's interesting content. Sometimes it does lead to stories in mainstream media.

And I might add that bloggers have existed since the beginning of newspapers; they wrote letters to the editor. ... There's always them, when you write a story, somebody out there who knows a lot about a little. They know a lot. And they can finds things you left out of a story, they can find things you got wrong. So bloggers don't bother me. I don't have any problem with blogging. But what will bloggers do and cable commentators do? They'll just do what they've been doing. And hopefully they'll do it a little bit better.

But here's the big distinction. And you can deride corporate journalism if you want to. But the thing about corporate journalism is that you have a support structure to do tough things. That's my lawyer, okay? I mean, I pay him a lot of money to open doors, to stop people from trying to prevent us from publishing stories. And the question is, what's the structure an independent blogger has? What happens when you're trying to write a really tough story, and they say, you know, I'm going to sue your butt off? I'm going to take your house, I'm going to take your car, I'm going to take everything? Does that journalism get done? Well, it's much more likely with the sort of support structure that we have—corporate journalism—that we can. ...

What do we need to do to keep the public service component of newspapers alive? We need money. You know, what I always say is, a free press ain't free. It costs a lot of money to do journalism that matters.

And to your point, that newspapers or journalism has supported the status quo, I vigorously disagree with that. I think that newspapers and journalism is about challenging the status quo. It always has been. ...

We're not entering a post-journalism era. We are entering a post-fact era, where facts aren't really that important to a lot of people. And I don't mean that they don't care about facts, they just care about the facts that agree with their position. And there's this really interesting book that's out that's called... True Enough. And it talks about sort of the belief society, where people actually won't let in information that challenges things that they believe, and only accept information that sort of supports their point. ... So we're in a post-fact era, and I think we run the risk of getting in really deep trouble by only letting in stuff that we agree with.

I think that one of the things that sort of contributes to a vigorous democracy is finding out about things that challenge your assumptions. That make you question what you believe. And I worry about the silo mentality that seems to be developing in this post-fact society. ...

I will say this about the Sotomayor quote. ... The day after the story came out, when Newt Gingrich accused her of being a racist, we read the speech. We read the speech—we do have time to do good journalism. We read the speech, and we actually wrote a story that said that's out of context. Here is what she said. Here is what she meant. Here's what she said before, here's what she said after. And that's really what journalism's about. Journalism is about the business of verification. And we as a society can't afford to lose that.

During the questions I offered one final push (and this is where I'll leave things here):

One big issue that we're talking about here is this idea of impartiality or disinterestedness, versus partisanship. ... I think that, as a goal, disinterestedness is completely wrong. If you're disinterested, that just means that you're lazy and you don't care about the story. What you ought to be is passionately interested in obtaining the truth.

So it's not about being disinterested versus being partisan. It's about, are you looking for the truth, or not? And I totally agree with Greg Moore that we do need some larger media enterprises with these checks and balances, with good editors. Because there are a lot of bloggers who just don't have the discipline to write good stuff. ...

That doesn't mean that a large organization is overcoming this partisanship. I've seen some what I consider overtly partisan "news" stories in the pages of the Denver Post. ... You're not going to escape the problem by having big media versus little media. The difference is, is the individual reporter going to go after the facts.

So I'm overtly partisan. I mean, that's why I do journalism, because I'm a political activist. I'm an advocacy journalist. I'm oriented toward free markets and individual rights. That's my thing. So, for instance, I did a lot of original research into corporate welfare in Colorado. ...

Instead of having a distinction of disinterestedness versus partisanship, I would like to make another distinction, which is the straight, easy, fact-based news... versus more of the analysis, the integration of the facts. Now, with that integration of the facts, that's a lot harder, and that's where we get into a lot more disagreement. So that's why I love reading Colorado Independent, Westword (some writers at Westword tend to have sort of a left-wing bent), but I love reading these publications because they look up good facts, and that's useful to me. I mean, a fact's a fact, it doesn't matter if you're a Republican, Democrat, right winger, left winger.

I'd like to briefly address the Sotomayor issue, just because that illustrates what we're talking about. So, if you tend to lean toward the left, and you're reading a publication that tends to lean toward the left, and it says that a quote by Sotomayor is out of context, it's like, "Yes, we're all right, and everybody who's beating up Sotomayor is wrong." But, you know what, I read that speech too... I've done a detailed (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/06/judge-sotomayors-relativism.html) analysis of that speech on my web page. ... And the fact is that she is basically a judicial subjectivist. That's what she is, and she repeats the point over and over again, in many different ways. So the broader point is not out of context. ...

So one of the complaints is we filter the facts according to our perception. But a lot of people saying this, and beating up the other side, are doing the exact same thing, right? So it's a mirror that we need to hold up to ourselves too. ... Whether we're partisans overtly or unnamed partisans, I think that that's very very important.

Frazier Favors Tax Cuts, 'Stimulus,' Public-Private Partnerships

October 12, 2009

Does Ryan Frazier support genuinely free markets or not? I had been under the vague impression that he does, but reports of a recent interview suggest that Frazier supports Keynesian "stimulus" spending and public-private partnerships, which violate economic liberty. So what is the straight scoop?

(http://bendegrow.com/2009/a-little-different-take-on-ryan-frazier-from-liberal-blogger-david-thielen/) Ben DeGrow pointed out an article by (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-thielen/an-interview-with-senate_b_315138.html) David Thielen republished by the Huffington Post pointing out that Frazier favored "stimulus" spending for transportation and education in addition to public-private partnerships.

I was a little surprised by DeGrow's kid-glove treatment of the candidate: "Solutions-oriented? Definitely. Committed to limited government principles? An opportunity for a clarifying follow-up discussion."

If Frazier can't clarify his basic views in an hour-long interview, I doubt a "follow-up discussion" will shed more light on the matter.

But is Thielen's summary accurate? I was surprised that his "interview" contained not a single direct quote. Might "Liberal and Loving It" Thielen be skewing Frazier's remarks? Thankfully, on his (http://www.davidthielen.info/politics/2009/10/ryan-frazier-interview.html) original post, Thielen offers a link to download the audio file of the interview.

After a discussion of food and personal background (and a telling remark from Thielen that he regards certain "libertarians" as to the right of Genghis Khan), Frazier at 17 minutes, 42 seconds into the recorded conversation discusses his general principles:

There were certain principles that attracted me to the Republican Party. ... [Something] the free enterprise system. [There's a lot of background noise with the recording, making parts of it difficult to understand.] ... Fiscal responsibility. And protect the rights of the individual. And in doing so you protect the rights of the community.

Frazier discussed the "fiscal responsibility that I think will in the long term help create a better America for our children."

At 19 minutes, 48 seconds, Frazier says:

For me, there are a couple things that are absolutely, I think critical to a stronger, better, safer America. Obviously it starts with the economy. At the end of the day, [if] a person can't keep a roof over their head and lights on and provide clothes for their children's back... Trust me, I know, I grew up in a difficult environment. And, for me, that ought to be the focus for all of us. That ought to be one of the primary things that any of us who seek to represent the people focus on. That is, how do we continue to enact policies, or restraining government, such that the economy, and the ability for it to flourish, is sustainable. ...

I would look to leaders who have demonstrated the ability to do that. I think one of the Democrats' very best... is JFK. ... If you read some of his speeches, things he pushed for, I think a lot of those things are true today, as much as they were true then, in 1962. For instance... he gave an address to the (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html) economic club on New York in 1962. I thought it was one of the best addresses I've heard, period. And in effect what he says ... [is] the single largest thing that the federal government can do to aid economic growth is to create an environment for private consumption and investment...

He goes on to say to cut the fetters of... [the] private sphere. And he goes on to make a case for the types of things, given the circumstances, given the environment—i.e., you have an economy that is trying to find it's footing, that has a potential to grow much more—that can be done to assist in that effort. And he in this case advocates for tax relief for everyone, both personal and corporate income tax relief. ...

If you want to truly, really stimulate your economy, one of the greatest ways is to reduce, even if it's momentarily, reduce any barriers... to private consumption and investment. ... So what does that look like? ... You look at ways that you can reduce taxation on everyone. Not just one segment of society, but everyone, in order to stimulate private consumption, which ultimately leads to a growing economy. And you also incentivize... investment in additional equipment... and technology. ...

Obviously I'm a Republican because I believe in a more limited government, which is not the same thing as no government. There is a role for government, and I'll have that conversation with anybody who believes otherwise. ... But the question is, what is that role, and what extent ought that role to be?

At this point, I was thinking to myself, Jesus, Thielen; you wandered into a gold mine and came out with a few shiny lumps of coal. But I give him credit for conducting an interesting interview. At 24 minutes, 30 seconds, Thielen asked Frazier what positive role he sees for government in the economy. Frazier replied:

A limited government is not no government. So I think you have to articulate what are those limited roles, and what is it that government can or properly should be doing. I happen to be an advocate for public-private partnerships. I think that is a great solution for a lot of the challenges we face in this country. Whether it's FasTracks here locally, and looking at public-private partnerships there, or other projects where the private sector and the public sector can come together to help further the improvement of our community. It makes a lot of sense to me. ... I think transportation is one of the perhaps single largest areas for public-private partnerships in this country and right here in Colorado.

At 29 minutes, 32 seconds, Thielen asks, "Well let me ask you about the present downturn... There were a lot of things that fed into it. But the thing that made this thing just horrendous is credit disappeared. ... Cutting taxes doesn't do squat for getting the credit unstuck. ... Do you think what they did up to now was a reasonably good attempt to address it?"

Frazier replied:

I'm not sure that tax relief doesn't do squat. Because one of the reasons that credit markets are so tight... is there continues to be a lack of confidence in where the economy will go. Will we start to produce, will we start to flourish, or will we continue to... either stagnate or perhaps move in the south direction? That's a factor in credit markets that perhaps is less tangible but exists...

Tax relief... is a part of the solution ultimately in getting the economy going. But what we're able to achieve, if we're able to stimulate the economy, is confidence. ... What I'm advocating for is looking ways in which government perhaps can reduce... taxation on business and to the individual in order to incentivize private consumption and investment in industry.

At minute marker 33, Frazier discusses federal "stimulus" spending:

The results have not quite been what has been expected or touted. ... I believe that that stimulus package would have been better suited had it focused more on infrastructure and development in this country. ... Six percent actually went towards transportation infrastructure. ... I believe that that was insufficient. If you want to do a stimulus package and you're seeking to build longer-lasting jobs, it seemed to me that, if you're not going to look at investment tax credits or, somehow, tax relief for everyone, that you ought to invest in infrastructure, in transportation. ... The state of transportation in this country... is bad. ... And so it seemed to me that a larger portion, a much larger portion, of the stimulus package, should have been directed toward infrastructure, which would have created a lot of jobs that I believe would have been around longer, had a much larger impact on the economy...

In response to Thielen's comments about the usefulness of "stimulus" spending for things like education and national parks as well, Frazier responds, "That's true. I think, when you look at the cost-benefit... transportation infrastructure and education would have probably made the most sense."

At 38 minutes, 7 seconds, Frazier offers an interesting qualifier:

I agree with you, that productivity ultimately ultimately will increase the economy... That said, the question is how best do you achieve that... I think that's the debate in the country, is, do you believe that more government spending will result in that? It possibly could. I'm sure you could point to points in our history where that had worked. ... There are more instances in history where you could point to how you, not necessarily reduce government, but you reduce the perceived burden of government on individuals and on business, which ultimately leads to... private consumption and investment...

The upshot is that the initial reports were accurate: Frazier explicitly advocated "private-public partnerships" and "stimulus" spending for transportation and education. That Frazier used (http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/07/taxtracks-blows-budget-surprise.html) TaxTracks as his lead example of an allegedly successful public-private partnership did surprise me. (I stopped listening at about the forty minute marker, when Thielen strangely asked about the difference between a scientific fact and theory, so somebody else might want to listen to the rest of the recording for additional insights.)

Obviously Frazier is more enthusiastic about lowering taxes, and less enthusiastic about "stimulus" spending, than many Democrats. His view of "stimulus" spending during a recession is not that it's always necessary, but that it's sometimes useful. He showed serious interest in limiting federal spending to particular, widely popular sorts of projects. So Frazier is not as bad as Barack Obama or George W. Bush when it comes to violating economic liberty on the alter of Keynesian economics.

But Frazier still has some deep problems. I'll discuss two of his problems briefly, one of economics and one of political philosophy.

"Stimulus" spending is on net destructive to the economy despite its prejudicial title. It is more accurately called welfare spending, and often it is corporate welfare. Candidates are less inclined to admit they endorse corporate welfare than they are to claim they favor "stimulus" spending.

Forced wealth transfers deprive the voluntary economy of critically needed resources. Frazier is right that lack of confidence is a big problem: and the biggest contributer to this lack of confidence is a federal government intent on imposing capricious and ever-changing controls on the economy. The economy still suffers under the looming threats of cap-and-trade and a political health takeover, to mention just two examples. So the federal government should get the hell out of the way of economic recovery, then it should give people the freedom to invest their own resources as they see fit. Tragically named "stimulus" spending only interferes with the recovery process. At best it creates less-productive make-work that contributes little to long-term recovery while squandering resources.

Then there is the Constitutional problem. If there is an argument for spending federal tax dollars on transportation and education, as Frazier advocates, it has nothing to do with "stimulating" the economy, for again the wealth is forcibly transfered away from voluntary exchanges. But (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8) Article I, Section 8 doesn't even mention education as an approved federal function, and it mentions only "post roads" regarding transportation "infrastructure." Apparently Frazier is of the "fluid Constitution" school.

The more fundamental issue is the basic one of political philosophy. DeGrow talks about "limited government." Thielen discusses a "role for government"—without bothering to define what that role should be. Frazier combines the two vague phrases, apparently on the theory that the solution to ambiguity is to compound it.

What conservatives and "liberals" hardly ever discuss is what they think government is fundamentally for. Saying we need "more" or "less" government, robust or "limited" government, evades the central issue. Invoking vague phrases such as "the common welfare" begs the question of what constitutes welfare and when welfare is properly common. Everyone (save nihilists and self-refuting anarchists) wants both a robust and a limited government: a government that does very well whatever it is it should be doing and that doesn't do whatever it should leave alone. The critical question is, what purposes does a government properly serve?

My view, rooted in classical liberal theory and the more recent ideas of Ayn Rand, is that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights, including those of property and voluntary association. Thus, so-called "stimulus" spending is not only economic folly but moral depravity. I want government to robustly protect individual rights, and I want government limited to that function.

Perhaps in some future interview Frazier will offer his answer to this fundamental question, then explain how that answer relates to his particular policy prescriptions.

James Warner Shares Light of Liberty

October 12, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091012/OPINION/910119990/1062/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published October 12, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

James Warner shares light of liberty

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The Hanoi Hilton. That's what we called the Prisoners of War camps in Vietnam. Thankfully, though your elder author Linn served in that war, he never got room service at the Hilton.

James Warner was not so lucky. When helping to set up a talk Warner gave in town last month, Linn learned that during the war Warner was imprisoned 650 miles to the north.

Several years ago, Linn met Captain Gerald M. Coffee, who spent over seven years in solitary confinement, the second longest imprisonment in northern Vietnam. Linn asked Warner whether he knew Coffee.

"Of course I knew of him, we spent several years together at the Hilton," Warner said. "You don't know someone when your only communication is tap tap, tap tap." The prisoners had developed a code to communicate with each other.

During the conversation Linn was taken back to thoughts of the great friends that he got to know, such as Tracy and Redman. Yes, a band of brothers.

Warner, former legal council to the National Rifle Association, spoke at the annual Informed Gun Owners conference last month, an event hosted by the Pro Second Amendment Committee.

He titled his talk, "From the Hanoi Hilton to the White House: How I learned the Value of Freedom in a Communist Prison."

Warner was held by force. He held his audience captive for ninety minutes with the power of his life's story. Warner showed little personal bitterness toward the pilot who, Warner believes, made a mistake that cost him his freedom and gave comfort to the enemy camp.

Warner has written, "I was put in a cement box with a steel door, which sat out in the tropical summer sun. There, I was put in leg irons which were then wired to a small stool. In this position I could neither sit nor stand comfortably. Within 10 days, every muscle in my body was in pain (here began a shoulder injury which is now inoperable). The heat was almost beyond bearing. My feet had swollen, literally, to the size of footballs. I cannot describe the pain. When they took the leg irons off, they had to actually dig them out of the swollen flesh."

Warner and his fellow prisoners would remember each other's names, so that if one got out he could inform the families of those still held. This was the first time that many would learn whether their loved one was still alive.

Some of the POWs would remember great works of literature, surprised by how much of a reading or poem they could recall. Some thought of philosophy, remembering the historical importance that the Greeks played in saving the idea of the individual.

Warner wrote a text on math. He had to steal empty cigarette containers from the guards, soak the containers in water until the sheets of paper separated, and then compress the sheets under his straw mat until dry. Several times guards confiscated the pages, and Warner had to start again. But Warner completed the work and brought it back. It now resides at the Marine POW museum.

Warner, commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps in 1966, volunteered for duty in Vietnam the next year. He flew more than 100 missions before enemy fire shot down his VMFA-323 just north of the Demilitarized Zone on October 13. He spent five and a half years as a prisoner. His chest full of metals, including a Sliver Star and two Purple Hearts, only begin to reveal the heart inside the chest.

Warner continued to unfold his life's story. One could see and feel the spirit of the old warrior as he leaned on his cane.

Warner served as Domestic Policy Advisor to President Ronald Reagan, focusing on economic and health policy issues. You can thank Warner every time you drive down I-70, as he helped repeal the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. Warner has also won the H. L. Mencken award defending the First Amendment and gone to the Supreme Court defending the Second Amendment.

Warner joined a long line of great speakers brought to our community by the Pro Second Amendment Committee. Past speakers include David Kopel, lead scholar for the Independence Institute; Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, who advocated concealed carry after witnessing her parents' murder in Texas; John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime; and former Sheriff Riecke Claussen.

After listening to Warner talk about his experiences and answer questions, the audience seemed emotionally drained, horrified by the details of Warner's imprisonment and inspired by his continued resolve.

Warner said he has dedicated his life to the never-ending battle for freedom. Warner went through years of living hell, then went back to work defending freedom in America. Most of us have only to read about the issues and articulate the case for liberty. May we, like Warner, show the fortitude to overcome adversity and fight for our principles.

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.

Health Care Reform as "Government Air"

October 13, 2009

Want to know what "public option" health insurance would look like? Just imagine trying to fly "Government Air," the new (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKXuDPFz_9g) Health Care Reform video from the Independence Institute encourages. The results are perhaps somewhat different than what NPR had in mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKXuDPFz_9g

Ryan Frazier Appears Set to Switch Races

October 13, 2009

A few hours ago Ryan Frazier, candidate for U.S. Senate, commented on his (http://twitter.com/ryanFrazier2010) Twitter feed: "Hi everyone, I'm going to be making a big announcement this week. Stay tuned for more details."

(http://bendegrow.com/2009/ryan-fraziers-big-announcement-switching-to-take-on-perlmutter/) Ben DeGrow writes: "My guess? Fundraising numbers for the third quarter were less than stellar, and higher-ups in the party finally had the leverage to persuade Frazier to take a stab at the 7th Congressional District instead."

This is so obvious I'm stunned I didn't think of it before. Last month I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/big-korkowski.html) speculated that Frazier might jump races to lieutenant governor. But there's one huge problem with that: Scott McInnis and Josh Penry are duking it out for the Republican nomination for governor. Plus, it's sort of a lame position, especially for someone with Frazier's political hunger.

Perhaps I didn't think of congress because I think of the Seventh as Arvada, not Aurora. But (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=CO&district=7) look at the map. It is a strangely drawn district that goes right around Denver.

I personally like (http://www.briantcampbellsr.com/) Brian Campbell, the guy currently in the race on the GOP side. But I never seriously thought Campbell had a chance to beat out Ed Perlmutter, who has walked over his opponents with ease.

A Frazier run against Perlmutter means that the Colorado GOP has a serious chance to pick off three big Democrats: Governor Bill Ritter (via Penry or McInnis), Senator Michael Bennet (via Jane Norton), and Perlmutter. Suddenly the best-case scenario for Republicans looks very good indeed.

Unfortunately, I know very little about Norton, except that she worked for Bill Owens, which means that she's at least strongly associated with the tax-and-spend "Country Club" wing of the GOP. Apparently she's (http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991297-norton-enters-crowded-gop-race-us-senate) against abortion.

I know a bit more about Frazier. He's better than most Republicans on (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/10/frazier-favors-tax-cuts-stimulus-public.html) economic matters—which is sort of like saying he smells better than Roquefort. He supports domestic partnerships for gay couples. And he seems to (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/09/big-korkowski.html) personally oppose abortion without getting too excited about banning it.

Frazier's socially moderate views will play much better in the metro 'burbs than they would play in rural Weld County or in El Paso, home of Focus on the Family. And the House seems a much more plausible step up for a city councilor.

I suppose we will see very soon whether the official story matches the obvious scenario.

Comment by Jim Pfaff: Frazier MUST choose a federal race if he wants to use the funds he has raised so far. Therefore the Lt. Governor option you discuss is out of the question because he must start at square one. And he is better suited to run for the 7th. Perlmutter should not go unchallenged in a district which, though changing, elected Bob Beauprez. Win or lose, he should do this. If he loses, take another shot in 2012 when the environment will still be good. But Frazier CAN win that seat if he runs a good campaign.

Comment by Patrick Sperry: The 7th is so screwy it's pathetic. I had fits being in it. If ever there was a decent argument opposing gerrymandering, the 7th would be it. The people there are all over the board politically as well as geographically. There is little cohesion,and that is why I have to agree with the above poster. Ed, the train wreck, will crush anyone that opposes him using common sense and logic.

Activism and Writing Letters to the Editor

October 14, 2009

I led an "Activism and LTE Workshop" October 6 (thank to the Independence Institute for lending me the space). Here are my modified notes.

The type of activism we should pursue is Intellectual Activism, marked by presenting reasonable arguments based on logic and evidence to the public. The goal is to reach active minds in the culture through various means of communication.

Intellectual activism may be contrasted with a couple of bad types of activism. Intimidation is what we think of regarding the typical far-left protest, where the goal is to scare people, break property, and throw stuff at police. Any sort of threat or violence falls into this sort of bad activism.

Sophistic or postmodern activism uses language as a battering ram or a weapon to change policies, irrespective of the facts. This is the modern version of what the Greek Sophists did: use language to persuade people through deceit and trickery rather than through sound arguments. On the left, this sort of activism is marked by postmodernism, using language as a social tool rather than as a means of conveying the truth. This sort of activism involves distorting statistics, cherry picking data, taking quotes out of context, and pushing logical fallacies. This sort of activism often relies upon crafting some "narrative" to spin one's policies or vilify one's opponents, as with calling opponents of Obamacare an unruly mob. Closely related is the obsession with unfounded conspiracy theories.

The primary goal of intellectual activism is to present the case for liberty and individual rights to the public. Generally this is done by presenting arguments in written or oral form. Other goals of intellectual activism can be to promote a positive article, person, or group, or to draw attention to some cause.

Many types of activism can be good or bad depending on the context. For example, rallies can be great, but if the participants are off message they can be counterproductive. Partisanship, or beating up the other side, can be appropriate if partisan attacks are rooted in the facts and if they put principles above politics.

So what are the types of intellectual activism? This can best be seen in graphic form (thanks to my wife Jennifer for creating the image).

The image illustrates the roots of activism, the main three divisions—activist training, politics, and mass communication—and the written and oral branches of mass communication.

Note that one particular campaign of intellectual activism can involve multiple branches. For example, promoting a good article written by an ally might involve writing a blog post, posting a social media link, and mentioning the article in a letter to an elected official.

Obviously, intellectual activists generally specialize in a few branches, though a well-rounded activist can swing easily among various branches.

Writing letters to the editor is one small branch of the tree, but it is an important one. The ability to write a good letter to the editor is an essential skill of any good activist. If you can write a good letter, you can also write a good blog post, learn to write a good op-ed, and translate your skills to oral communication. That is why the workshop I led focussed on developing this skill.

I recorded my presentation on writing letters, so I'll turn the reader over to those YouTube videos. Some of my material finds inspiration on the (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=11070) article by Robert W. Tracinski, "How to Write an Effective Letter to the Editor."

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1bccMTGOk0

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVOZypvAJ14

Comment by Joseph Kellard: A few years ago, I bought a taped course on writing letters to the editor, by Robert Tracinski, from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. If you're interested in improving your skills at writing letters to the editor, I recommend buying that course. While I checked the ARB web site to see if it is still available, I did not see it listed. You may nevertheless want to try calling or emailing ARB to see if they have another copy or two in stock.

Comment by martha in SC-5: Very glad to discover this tutorial. Grass roots and first time activists are getting involved in SC-5 congressional district to try to unseat 28 year incumbent Rep.John Spratt this year. This straightforward advice for letter writing is a great aid. Thanks!

Vampire Haiku

October 15, 2009

The Denver Post is running a weekly contest for writing haikus. This week the topic is vampires. The only rule is that the verse must follow the 5-7-5 syllable structure. Here's my entry (which my wife, at least, thought was funny):

Vampires suck my blood?
No, they suck my wallet dry
at cheesy movies.

(http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?p=1088420) Here's the rest of the entries, for those interested.

Fall Harvest

October 22, 2009

It has been snowing and raining today, so it feels like winter is upon us. Hidden on my camera, however, were some nice photos of the fall's harvest [photos omitted].

This year's garden was thrown together. We were in the middle of working on the house (which we're still doing), and we planted late in mediocre soil. Still, we had a garden, and we did pretty well given our limitations. We got good produce from our 48 tomato plants, and we also had some summer and winter squash. Next year I plan to do considerably better.

By the way, the basil is from our wonderful indoor plant. Also by the way, today I turned a couple of butternut squash (one purchased, one from the garden) into a (http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/butternut_squash_apple_soup/) fabulous soup.

Ben Carson, A Hero of Medicine

October 24, 2009

We just rented and watched Gifted Hands, the story of (http://www.jhu.edu/mse/carson.html) neurosurgeon Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins. It's a fantastic film. In today's cinematic world of mindless action, dumb comedy, and grotesque horror, here is a different sort of movie, a movie about a true hero, someone who made medical history with his innovative brain surgeries.

Dr. Carson says in a documentary accompanying the film, "It will show the incredible power of education and what it can do for a person. How it can take a person from a life of virtually nothing to the pinnacle of one of the toughest professions in the world."

Carson grew up in poverty. Though illiterate, his mother drove her sons to educational excellence, requiring them to report on books from the library. Carson overcame struggles in school and racial prejudice to achieve an outstanding education and take the path to medicine.

The film has an obvious religious theme and emphasizes Carson's religious faith. What drives the heroic story, though, is Carson's dedication to learning and to his career goals. Well worth viewing.

CO Constitution Requires Tax-Funded Schools Three Months Per Year

October 25, 2009

The Colorado Supreme Court is totally out of control. As (http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/10/20/colorado-supreme-court-usurps-legislature%E2%80%99s-role-and-authority-again-claims-power-to-set-proper-school-funding-amounts/) Clear the Bench details, the court's latest outrage is to allow a legal suit to force taxpayers to send more of their hard-earned money to government schools.

As (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13621771) Vincent Carroll summarizes, the suit would "undermine democracy and the separation of powers in Colorado."

The Denver Post's (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13636613) Tim Hoover nicely reviews the case. He writes, "Kathy Gebhardt, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the school-funding suit, said... courts would have to determine whether the right to a 'thorough and uniform' education funding system outweighs the right of citizens to vote on taxes."

But why should the courts get to establish what constitutes a "thorough and uniform" education? As Carroll and others note, the state's Constitution explicitly grants funding authority to the general assembly.

However, there is another telling line in the same provision that indicates what the document's authors thought consistent with a "thorough and uniform" education: the line requiring schools "at least three months in each year." Obviously, dramatically less tax spending on education is consistent with this part of the Constitution.

Here is the entire bit from Article IX:

Section 2. Establishment and maintenance of public schools.

The general assembly shall, as soon as practicable, provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state, wherein all residents of the state, between the ages of six and twenty-one years, may be educated gratuitously. One or more public schools shall be maintained in each school district within the state, at least three months in each year; any school district failing to have such school shall not be entitled to receive any portion of the school fund for that year.

Radical Environmentalists Undermine Human Progress

October 26, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091026/OPINION/910259987/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published October 26 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Radical environmentalists undermine human progress

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The documentary Not Evil, Just Wrong apparently draws its title from an interview with an advocate of DDT, the pesticide sprayed in the U.S. decades ago to wipe out malaria by killing disease-causing mosquitos. Thanks to radical (and dishonest) environmentalists, such as Al Gore's hero Rachel Carson, international bans on DDT helped cause millions of deaths from malaria in developing nations.

The DDT advocate says that he doesn't think these environmentalists are evil, just wrong. Yet they advocated policies that caused misery and death for millions of human beings, and they continue to advocate policies that would devastate the global economy and cause more death particularly among the world's poor.

Your younger author attended a free screening of the documentary October 18 at an event sponsored by the Independence Institute. The same night the documentary also streamed online.

In addition to reviewing the history of DDT, the documentary also pokes holes in some of the major "global warming" claims, including the infamous "hockey stick" graph and claims that recent years have been the warmest on record. Indeed, even the BBC recently (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm) admitted that we seem to be headed into a relative cool spell.

The documentary also offers some historical perspective. The earth has gotten warmer and cooler many times over the ages for entirely natural reasons. And, since the beginning of human civilization, some people have been predicting the apocalypse. The global cooling scare is just a few decades old, the documentary reminds us, and some scientists quickly jumped from global cooling to global warming fear mongering.

Unfortunately, while the documentary is better than the work of, say, Al Gore or Michael Moore, it drops the ball on a number of important points.

The film should have offered more information about the earth's natural warming and cooling cycles, including theories attempting to explain them.

The film says that replacing coal with windmills and solar panels would be economically devastating, and we agree, but the film doesn't offer much detail on the matter. Nor does the film discuss nuclear power generation in Europe or, potentially, in the U.S.

The film doesn't even clarify its view on global warming. The film seems to alternately suggest that human-caused global warming is unreal or overstated, that some global warming might be a good thing, and that we'll be able to develop the technology required to deal with warming.

Critics will legitimately ask: if human-caused global warming is real, and if it will cause harm, and if we can deal with that harm technologically, then why can't we also explore new technology to reduce CO2 emissions in the first place?

The film plausibly argues that reducing U.S. CO2 emissions would merely shift emissions to China and other developing nations, where coal burning tends to be a lot dirtier. However, the film could have offered considerably more detail on the projected impacts on CO2 emissions from anti-industrial "cap-and-trade" proposals.

A better documentary would have clearly articulated these themes. Radical environmentalists grossly exaggerate human-caused global warming and the potential harms of it. Industry operating in relatively free markets has progressively created cleaner and more abundant energy, leading to dramatic improvements to human life, and it should have the freedom to continue. More political controls on energy will stifle industry and innovation while trivially impacting global CO2 emissions.

There is a broad sense in which we are practically all environmentalists. We all want to breath clean air, drink clean water, and eat healthy food. We all want to limit our exposure to dangerous chemicals. More broadly we want to live and work in comfortable homes and offices in a productive and economically expanding society. We want what's good for people, and we want an environment conducive to human life.

But radical environmentalists often see people as the enemy. Some environmentalists have likened people to a virus or plague, lamented the growing human population, and hoped for human-killing diseases and catastrophes.

Such environmentalists tend to make two basic errors. First, they see untouched nature as intrinsically valuable. They have no problem with natural climate change, smoke, or chemicals. They just dislike anything that people do to alter nature. Second, they see people as unnatural, as something apart from nature and disruptive to it.

We view nature as good for people. We enjoy wilderness areas for their recreational value. We enjoy the products of mines, tree farms, and factories. We see people as part of the environment, and our proper goal is to use and modify nature for our own benefit.

Radical environmentalists opposed human industry long before the global warming scare. If the earth cools again, they will soon offer some other pretext to destroy human development.

We do not know whether human-caused global warming will ever pose significant challenges for people. But we do know that radical environmentalists pose a grave threat to human progress and life.

Rosen 0, Longo 0

October 29, 2009

Some readers may have noticed that my blog posts feed into the (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/) People's Press Collective. How this process works is a mystery to me, and I'm not even sure whether my posts automatically feed into it or whether they must pass through a human gatekeeper. At any rate, I think it's a useful site, and I like all the contributers I know. That said, I disagree with the occasional post there.

A (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/10/principles-are-universal-not-convenient/) recent post by "AnCap"—a.k.a. Justin Longo of (http://completecolorado.com/) Complete Colorado (and I'm not spilling any (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/05/censoring-scott-mcinnis/) beans here)—is quite interesting even though fundamentally wrong.

Longo's main point is that radio host Mike Rosen often compromises free-market principles in the name of "reality." I can attest this is true. Rosen often has expressed a belief that what's good in theory may not work in practice. Therefore, he often jettisons principles for the sake of pragmatism. For example, Longo notes, Rosen supported the TARP "stimulus" corporate welfare. As Longo paraphrases, Rosen is "still reluctantly for TARP because doing nothing would have been far worse."

Longo is correct that Rosen's position violates free-market principles. Moreover, Rosen is simply wrong: "doing nothing" would have been far better than forcibly transferring wealth from the productive economy to political boondoggles. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0209/p09s01-coop.html) Robert Higgs makes this case.

The more fundamental point that Rosen misses is that restoring a truly free market would be a lot better than "doing nothing." Advocates of free markets are not for the status quo: we are for replacing today's mixed economy with liberty. As my dad and I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/07/politicians-caused-mortgage-meltdown/) reviewed, politicians caused the mortgage meltdown. Since then they have been worsening the recession and delaying recovery through massive wealth transfers, new and capricious economic controls, and continuous threats of more of the same.

As Longo reviews, Rosen believes that free market reforms today are "not on the table." What Rosen neglects to notice is that what's on the table is what we put on the table. Free market reforms are not on the table today because practically all Republicans have busily renounced free markets in favor of more political controls. But that's not quite true; despite the Republican war on free markets, some free market reforms are on the table thanks to the efforts of a small but dedicated few devoted to liberty, such as the idea to expand Health Savings Accounts. (This reform appears to be hidden under a napkin, but at least it's on the table.)

True, cultural changes can be long and arduous. But we can't achieve positive change unless we fight for it. Just look at what the abolitionists achieved in a span of years. Rosen creates a self-fulfilling prophesy by presuming that free market reforms are off the table. Pragmatists content themselves to gnaw on the scraps tossed to them by those with the ambition to take a seat at the table.

Yet Longo's deeper critique of Rosen illustrates precisely what's wrong with the libertarian movement. Rosen plays the "pragmatic libertarian" to Longo's "dogmatic libertarian." This is precisely the problem I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2005/05/morelal.html) observed in the Libertarian Party a few years ago—and the reason I left the party and no longer count myself a libertarian.

Longo's argument is worth examining:

If stopping an employee from negotiating a mutually agreeable wage with an employer is wrong because third parties do not have the right to infringe on voluntary transactions, then one conclusion we can draw is that the minimum wage is immoral. Now take that principle and apply it universally, to all parties, at all times, and to all contracts, decisions, and transactions. Think about it. Do you not like the outcomes you get in some scenarios? Too bad. Those are the consequences you must deal with when principles are applied universally.

Is it wrong to kidnap another human being against their will? Yes? Okay, now apply that principle to all parties, at all times, ever in history? Oh no! You mean we cannot conscript soldiers during war? You mean we can't force people to sit on juries they don't want to? Too bad. Those are the consequences you must deal with in order to claim you are principled.

I realize that applying basic principles universally is scary, as some of the outcomes we reach are sometimes outcomes we are uncomfortable with. However, applying principles universally is an important thought experiment that allows us to see whether we really believe in something or we don't.

Let me close by suggesting just two principles I live by and apply universally. You are more than welcome to run millions of thought experiments in order to reach as many conclusions as possible with these two—warning: some outcomes will scare you.

First principle: You own yourself. No one else has a higher claim on you than you do.

Second principle: It is ALWAYS wrong to initiate force on someone else. (notice the use of the word initiate. Self-defense is absolutely moral).

As you can see, the second principle is really just a logical extension of the first principle. In my view, all we need is the first principle, as everything else is logically deduced from principle one.

Please apply my two principles universally—to all people at all times, ever in history. You will then see why I believe what I believe and how I reached my own conclusions over the years.

To Longo, it is simply "too bad" if libertarian theory, say, causes a death or the destruction of the planet. But obviously he doesn't really believe that "principles" should be completely detached from consequences; he suggests in his final line that, on net, looking at "all people at all times, ever in history," the principles he favors achieve the best results. Is that not why he believes what he believes?

The problem is that Longo's principles aren't principles at all; they are statements of dogma. A principle is a guide to action integrating vast knowledge about the real world. If a principle doesn't work in the real world, that means it's false. Contra Rosen, a principle is such precisely because it is tied to the real world. There is no split between theory and practice—provided that one's theory is grounded in reality and one's practice follows sound principles.

Longo claims that "everything else is logically deduced from principle one," which is, "You own yourself. No one else has a higher claim on you than you do."

Not only can very little be "deduced" from this claim, but the claim itself is, without principled grounding, completely arbitrary and implausible.

If we look at the course of human history, practically everyone has flat-our rejected the notion that "no one else has a higher claim on you than you do." Most people have accepted the authority of a king, a priest or deity, a democracy, or some proclaimed moral leader.

So where does Longo's "first principle" come from? It is certainly not intuitively obvious, it is not written in our genes, it is not written in the heavens.

For libertarians, this "first principle"—this fundamental dogma—is pulled out of nowhere. And that is the most basic problem with libertarianism.

Now, I certainly agree with the principle that a person properly directs the course of his own life. But this is a moral proposition that can only be grounded in the facts of human life and the nature of social interaction. One must prove it and determine its context, not just invoke it as some magical formula. (Proving it takes a lot of hard work that I am not prepared to undertake here, though I will note that in my view Ayn Rand made the most progress in developing the principle.)

But the statement "you own yourself" is not some sort of axiom. Indeed, it cannot possibly be an axiom. Ownership arises, conceptually, in the context of property, which arises only in a social setting. One could not even reach the idea of owning one's self without the idea of owning some bit of property (a tool, a bowl of food, whatever). Why should I think that I own the stone ax that I made? What if the tribal leader thanks me for creating the ax for the tribe and graciously hands it over to the canoe carver? A lot has to go on conceptually to get to the point where I can think about owning some piece of property. And, as I've (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/05/update-on-peikoffs-podcasts/) noted in brief, Leonard "Peikoff argues that ownership properly applies to external objects, and that ownership of one's self doesn't make sense."

But let's assume that we've developed some idea of self-ownership. What deductively follows from that? Practically nothing.

Consider. If I "own myself," and "no one else has a higher claim" on me, doesn't that mean I get to control my own actions? Fine. I want that nice-looking TV in the window, so I smash the window and take the TV. The libertarian will reply that the owner of the TV also owns himself, so I have violated his rights. But why should I give a rip about that, if self-ownership is the highest axiom? Go ahead and go own yourself; all I'm doing is taking is TV. To get anywhere with this, we need a complex theory of property rights, and this is not a matter of spinning out deductions from some alleged axiom. We have to say something about why property rights are necessary for human flourishing and why we should adopt one particular theory of property rights instead of some alternative one (such as one in which a king decides who controls what property).

"Second principle: It is ALWAYS wrong to initiate force on someone else."

Or, as one libertarian (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/06/barr-beats-anarchist/) put the matter:

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.

In fact, some libertarians have argued that children have a "self-ownership" right to have sex with adults, which is absolutely abhorrent. The quote above seems to sanction child pornography, which is disgusting and despicable. With "principles" like this, who can blame those who "pragmatically" stray from the "principles?"

The general problem is that what counts as force, and what counts as the initiation of force, depends entirely upon our theory of property rights, which again depends on complex moral and legal theories.

Saner libertarians argue that parents may, after all, use force in some contexts when it comes to their children. For instance, if Johnny is playing in the street and refuses to move, a parent may properly pick Johnny up and put him in a safer place. Unquestionably this is the use of force. Whether it is the "initiation of force" depends on which ad hoc rationalization the libertarian confuses for a deduction.

To hint at the real solution, the concept of rights (including property rights) arises in a particular context: the context of rational (as opposed to insane) adults capable of peaceful interaction with others. But again this is the end result of a complex chain of theoretical knowledge, not some first "principle" pulled out of the sky.

Let us extend another of Longo's examples. He argues that employers and employees should be able to voluntarily agree to a wage, and I quite agree in the normal context. But what if somebody decides to sell himself into lifelong slavery for a supply of drugs or a sum of money? Must we refrain from intervening in that transaction?

The sane libertarian will reply that contract law depends on certain conditions, and that selling one's self into lifelong slavery could not possibly meet those conditions. Regardless, the conclusion does not simply spin itself out deductively. Principles must integrate a wide range of facts about the human condition, and they can only be applied by examining the particular facts of the case at hand in light of the broader facts identified by the principle.

Ultimately Rosen and Longo make the same error of detaching principles from practice. Rosen abandons principles to achieve what allegedly works. Longo says we must stick to "principles" even when they are scary in practice. However you flip the libertarian coin, you get ungrounded theory on one side and unguided practice on the other. The dogmatists and the pragmatists clash as codependents.

Where I think Longo is headed is that consistently applying principles can create short-term and narrowly defined problems. But the far more important insight is that properly derived principles are absolutely essential for a person's success in life. Exercise might be momentarily unpleasant, but it contributes to general health. That union of theory and practice cannot come from libertarian dogma disguised as "first principles." Obviously it cannot come from the pragmatic rejection of principles. It can come only from a proper understanding of what principles are, why sound principles necessarily work, and why successful action must be guided by principles.

Comment by Ari: An anonymous poster wrote, "I'd like to hear your thoughts on 'self-ownership.' I'll admit that I'm a proponent of it (there may be a better choice of words to express it). I'm assuming that even if you don't (fully) buy into self-ownership, that you're certainly not a proponent of 'society' or any individual having claim over another's life." The point of whether "self-ownership" is the appropriate term is a side-issue. I wrote that "a person properly directs the course of his own life." If you want to call that "self-ownership," I don't really mind. The major point is that you can't just pretend that "self-ownership" is some sort of self-evident axiom or that the rest of political philosophy spins deductively from it. If you want to claim that people should have certain freedoms of action and property rights, you must prove it, not just assert it.

Comment by jed: Hi Ari. That's certainly thought provoking. To say that the concept of self ownership comes out of nowhere seems non-useful to me. One could just as well state that it's opposite has the same provenance. I would point out also that self-ownership doesn't negate the possibility of voluntary submission to an authority figure. But, more to the point, I think that in any philosophical system, you have to start somewhere. The historical authority of kings, emperors, etc. of which you speak has often been predicated upon deific endowment. For example, IIRC, the Aeneid was commissioned by a Roman emperor in order to trace his lineage back to Jupiter, and thus establish legitimacy of power. (If it wasn't the Aeneid, it was some other work from the Roman Empire.) But I have to ask: if you don't own your own life, how is it that you can own your own labor? And if you don't own your own labor, how can you contract with others to exchange it for money, or goods, or other services? And do so freely, without relying on any warrant from your feudal overlord, or whomever it is to whom you're beholden? This is my take on a sort of reverse proof of the validity of the argument. Though I admit it requires acceptance of individual liberty as a condition. But to take the other side allows justification of serfdom, slavery, monarchy, dictatorship, etc. I don't buy your TV theft argument either. Using self-ownership as a basis of property rights implies that you also respect the property rights of others. Thus it doesn't justify theft as OK on the basis of "no higher claim", because of course, it is owned by someone else, and your claim isn't higher than his. The higher claim applies only to things you rightfully own. If I'm a shop owner, no-one has a higher claim than I to my inventory. Otherwise, how could I undertake to contract with others for its sale?

Comment by Ari: Jed, it's amazing to me that you could so fundamentally miss my point. The central issue is that libertarians are wrong to take "self-ownership" as some sort of self-evident axiom or to think that other complexities, such as property rights, can be deduced from it. The claim that "self-ownership," by itself, implies robust Lockean property rights is simply nonsense. One could just as easily argue that "self-ownership" implies the right to food, housing, health care, etc. I don't really care whether you use the term "self-ownership," so long as you explain what you mean by it and justify it. The argument against using "ownership" to apply to one's person is simply that the concept should be restricted to one's relationship to material items. Did you somehow miss my statement that "a person properly directs the course of his own life?"

Comment by Brian S.: I attended a seminar on patent law a few years ago, and the presenter described property and ownership in terms of the "right to exclude" others from using it. This phrasing is fairly useful in explaining what ownership means (at least I think so), but of course not sufficient for resolving property rights and individual rights. In any case, very good post, Ari.

Comment by Chuck Moe: Your article is indeed thought provoking. However, I would have to agree with Murray Rothbard that self ownership is a property right. In fact, the most important property right one has. How can one truly have any other property rights if one does not have exclusive rights to one's self? This seems to be an idea that does not need any testing in the real world. Also, if a "person properly directs the course of his own life" wouldn't intervention in that course, even in the cause of preventing one from self harm, assume that the interventionist had some greater inner knowledge of that persons subjective reasons? I don't understand how subscribing to a "self-ownership" axiom could imply a right to food, health, etc. It simply claims a property right to a scarce resource that one has homesteaded. Having homesteading rights over one's body seems self-evident. Having automatic property rights over services and goods does not. These things would require some claim of ownership. In regards to the child and self ownership dilemma, I believe that once a child reaches an age of rationalization, the child "homesteads" his self ownership or property rights of himself. This is a subject that most certainly can be debated quite extensively and I find it a most fascinating topic. While I disagree that "self-ownership" isn't an axiom, I enjoy and appreciate the contrary point of view. I will have to ponder this in greater depth.

Comment by Ari: Allow me to clarify my major points. 1. "Self-ownership" cannot possibly be an axiom. It is not self-evident, it is not obvious, it is not widely agreed upon. It might be true, but it's not an axiom. 2. Very little can be "deduced" from self-ownership. Chuck writes that self-ownership "claims a property right to a scarce resource that one has homesteaded." Okay, you can say that, but it's certainly not logically implied by "self-ownership." 3. I'm not sure that "ownership" is the proper language to use with respect to one's self. I agree I should be able to control my body and actions consistent with property rights. But is that "ownership?" We literally cannot reach the concept of "ownership" until we relate it first to material items. For example, "I own this stone ax that I just made." Is it a legitimate step to then apply the concept of ownership to one's self? Perhaps, or perhaps it's a useful analogy. I'm not sure about this. But you can't even reach the concept of ownership until you first assert (implicitly or explicitly) your right to control your own body and actions, so it seems like ownership is coming out of a prior assertion of rights.

Comment by Chuck Moe: Wouldn't arguing against self ownership put oneself into a performative contradiction as Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues? By this I mean, if you use persuasion to convince people that self ownership is not an axiom, than you imply that I have a right to disagree. If I do have a right to disagree, does that not mean I have the ultimate authority of myself? Regardless of whether the concept of "self-ownership" is an axiom or not, it seems to be the only principal compatible with morality as the other alternatives are total communism or accepting partial control from another group. Perhaps including a caveat of rational behavior should be considered as I tend to avoid absolutes and there do seem to be situations where this may not always be beneficial. On the other hand, the freedom to commit errors seems just as fundamental. Again, I think this discussion is quite provoking and I'll have to marinate on these concepts much more. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and clarifications on the subject.

Comment by Ari: I regard Hoppe's argument as hyper-rationalistic nonsense. It does point out something interesting about consistency. But he has to load a great deal of other assumptions into his argument to make it work, including, as you suggest, that we should want other people to act by their own judgment.

Comment by Ben: I'm the first, anonymous poster. I agree with you that there needs to be a philosophical basis/proof for "self-ownership." However, for me at least, I thought it was pretty self-evident when I was younger (I told my dad something about being able to make decisions and act on them). Of course, I was relieved to not be the only one to think that way when I later found Rand and read her stuff. Thanks for the good website,
Ben

Comment by jed: Ari, I don't believe I've fundamentally missed your point. Agreeing with it is another matter. You've emphasized that "a person properly directs the course of his own life", and I agree with that. But then I have to ask how that is possible without self ownership. If someone else owns your life, then that person directs your course, not you. It seems that self-ownership is a necessary condition for your statement. But then it looks to me as if you're coming at it from the other direction. Anyways, my body is a material item, and I own it. The energy which it produces via chemical reactions is therefore mine as well, and so is the labor that this enables. I can use this labor to acquire other material items, and therefore own them as well. I simply don't see much in the way of complications there, philosophically.

Comment by Michael M: Ari, thanks for causing the discussion of the 'first principle' issue. From recent debates, my own argument against self-ownership as a first principle has emerged as this: When the libertarians, voluntaryists, anarchists and misesians hold self-ownership to be a political first principle, it fails for lack of an ethical principle that would give rise to any concept of ownership, let alone self-ownership. When they hold it to be an ethical first principle, it begs the question of what facts of our nature require it. The missing facts are that humans must resolve the most fundamental alternative living creatures face—existence or nonexistence—by exercising our volition to opt for and pursue life by applying reason to action and to do so independently to protect ourselves from and retain responsibility for the fallibility that is volition's corollary and common to each and every one of us. It is only the accommodation of these facts of our nature that will logically establish individual autonomy as right morally, and subsequently require (when extended to a social context) the political first principle that ... no person shall initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold or destroy any tangible or intangible value of any other person who has either created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange, ... and a government, as well, that will apply it by managing force per objectively defined political rights and enforcement procedures—i.e., radical capitalism. This seems to be consistent with your position ... Or?

Dreaming of a White... Halloween?

October 30, 2009

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, yet it's still two days before Halloween! I don't know what the official snow total is for my area, but we got well over a foot. [Photos omitted.]

Krugman Smears SuperFreakonomics

October 30, 2009

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner certainly don't need my help defending their new book SuperFreakonomics. They're doing a great job of it themselves. However, I do want to draw my readers' attention to the debate surrounding the book and recommend the book itself.

The first thing to note about the book is that it contains five chapters plus an epilogue (about monkeys). The main text of the book runs through page 216 (while notes and such run through page 270). The fifth chapter mostly concerns climate change, though it also rambles into topics such as auto thefts and AIDS, and it runs from page 165 to 209. The book covers a wide range of topics from prostitution to hospital sanitation. But the part about climate change is what has the critics riled up.

Though the debate has since seen more developments, I want to focus on Paul Krugman's attack on the book in his blog post, (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/superfreakonomics-on-climate-part-1/) Superfreakonomics on climate, part 1, published October 17.

Krugman claims that "the first five pages" of the chapter on climate change "are enough to discredit the whole thing... [b]ecause they grossly misrepresent other peoples' research, in both climate science and economics."

The chapter opens with the "global cooling" story—the claim that 30 years ago there was a scientific consensus that the planet was cooling, comparable to the current consensus that it's warming.

Um, no. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) Real Climate has the takedown. What you had in the 70s was a few scientists advancing the cooling hypothesis, and a few popular media stories hyping their suggestions. To the extent that there was a consensus, it was that there wasn't much evidence for anything, and more research was needed.

Krugman puts much more trust in the politically subsidized computer models projecting human-caused global warming than I do, but he legitimately points out that global warming now has much more scientific support than global cooling did decades ago. Uncle.

So where do Levitt and Dubner claim that global cooling was the consensus in the 1970s? They don't say that. Krugman just made that up. Talk about grossly misrepresenting other people's research.

What Levitt and Dubner do is quote two old articles about global cooling to begin their chapter. Through the course of their chapter, Levitt and Dubner make precisely the same point that so excites Krugman: global cooling soon lost support whereas global warming now has widespread scientific support.

On to the next point. On page 169, SuperFreakonomics states, "The economist Martin Weitzman analyzed the best available climate models and concluded that the future holds a 5 percent chance of a terrible-case scenario—a rise of more than 10 degrees Celsius."

Krugman replies,

Yikes. I read Weitzman's paper, and have corresponded with him on the subject—and it's making exactly the opposite of the point they're implying it makes. Weitzman's argument is that uncertainty about the extent of global warming makes the case for drastic action stronger, not weaker. ... Again, we're not even getting into substance—just the basic issue of representing correctly what other people said.

So where do Levitt and Dubner imply that Weitzman's paper urges weaker action on global warming? They don't imply that. Krugman just made that up. Because it's "just the basic issue of representing correctly what other people said."

Indeed, just two paragraphs later, Levitt and Dubner quote another economist who favors spending over a trillion dollars per year to address the problem. Perhaps that's not sufficiently "strong" action for Krugman, but it seems pretty strong to me.

Krugman more recently (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/page/2/) complains that Levitt and Dubner don't include arguments from Weitzman's paper that Krugman wishes they had included. But so what? Krugman is welcome to write his own book on climate change. Levitt and Dubner use the information from Weitzman fairly to set up their question, "So how should we place a value on this relatively small chance of worldwide catastrophe?"

Levitt and Dubner's broader point is that it's far cheaper and much faster-acting to geoengineer cooler temperatures than it is to dramatically curb carbon emissions. Read the book for details, or read Levitt's (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-warming-fact-quiz/#more-20459) post on the matter.

You might also want to check out replies from (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/the-superfreakonomics-global-warming-fact-quiz/) Levitt and (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/) Dubner to other environmentalist critics.

Our authors do raise an interesting question: given that geoengineering seems like it would solve potential problems of global warming much faster and much cheaper, why are most environmentalists so dismissive of the idea? I think my dad and I provide the answer in our recent (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/10/radical-environmentalists-undermine-human-progress/) op-ed: environmentalists "see untouched nature as intrinsically valuable. They have no problem with natural climate change, smoke, or chemicals. They just dislike anything that people do to alter nature."

Environmentalists favor carbon reduction because that reduces human interaction with the rest of the environment. Environmentalists oppose geoengineering because it increases human interaction with the rest of the environment. And that preference has exactly no basis in science.

In the end, the mere fact that Paul Krugman blasts SuperFreakonomics should interest readers in buying and reading the book.

* * *

Which is not to say that the book is perfect. Apparently I'm the outlier in reading the book from the beginning, but my issue with it arose much earlier, in the introduction, pages 2 and 3.

Levitt and Dubner write that "1 of every 140 miles is driven drunk, or 21 billion miles each year." The "total number of people killed in alcohol-related traffic accidents each year" is "about 13,000."

Here comes the sketchy part: "The average American walks about a half-mile per day outside the home or workplace. ... If we assume that 1 of every 140 of those miles are walked drunk—the same proportion of miles that are driven drunk—then 307 million miles are walked drunk each year."

The upshot is that, given "more than 1,000 drunk pedestrians die in traffic accidents," it's more dangerous to walk drunk than it is to drive drunk.

But whey should we "assume that 1 of every 140 of those miles are walked drunk?" The notes offer no clue about this. Offhand it seems like a wildly implausible assumption.

First, a lot of people go on long walks every day, and typically people don't get drunk before they exercise. So that skews the averages. Second, when people are rip-roaring drunk, it can seem very hard to walk down the street but very easy to turn the ignition key. So I suspect that the fraction of miles walked drunk is much lower than what our authors assume—which bolsters their point that drunk walking is dangerous.

Regardless of the exact risks, as someone who used to abuse alcohol, I can confirm the author's broader point that getting drunk can be generally dangerous, and traffic fatalities hardly exhaust the list of potential harms.

Comment by Bruce: Environmentalists oppose geoengineering because it increases human interaction with the rest of the environment. And that preference has exactly no basis in science. I agree with most of your points, but certainly not this one. I'm nervous about geo-engineering not because I place a philosophical value on untouched nature, but because I'm concerned about unintended consequences. Are we really so confident that we can pump just the right amount of sulphur to rebalance the atmosphere? It seems to me there would be a very high risk that we could make things worse. It reminds me of bringing cane toads to Australia to wipe out the cane beetles...

Comment by Ari: Bruce, as the book notes, pumping sulfur dioxide into the air mimics what volcanos do naturally, which scientists have studied intensively. As the book also notes, the effects are short-lived. So, if we don't like the results, we simply stop doing it (or do more of it). I fail to see the downside. -Ari

Comment by Ari: Starwalker, the whole argument about climate change is that it is the result of unintended consequences. Anything done about it—particularly cap-and-trade—will certainly have unintended consequences. The great thing about sulfur dioxide geoengineering is that a) there's no reason to start it unless a real and serious problem develops, b) it's fast-acting, c) it mimics widely studied natural phenomenon, and d) it can be stopped at any time, at which point its effects will quickly reverse.

Comment by Anonymous: Great post—The "ecological sin" brand of environmentalism always strikes me as deeply irrational. Starwalker—We should do whatever maximizes the difference of the benefits of global warming intervention minus the costs of intervention. The fact that there are unknowns can easily be factored into our policy by tweaking our decision to account for uncertainty. The fact that we don't know everything about something as complicated as the atmosphere doesn't mean we are doomed to paralysis.

Comment by Wilbur: This is Krugman's MO. He attacks intention with out proving anything or really suggesting anything. Notice how he does not even attempt a comparative analysis of anything on his own. In his trade research, everything is mathematical. Odd that.

Could Micropayments Save Newspapers?

October 31, 2009

At last month's (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/10/media-panel-discussion-continues/) media panel, somebody (I believe Adrienne Russell) mentioned the idea of micropayments for online media content. Such payments might help save the newspaper industry as well as help fund better bloggers.

The idea is that readers would pay a small fee—say a quarter or fifty cents—to read an article online. A popular story that drew a hundred thousand readers could do quite well for a publication.

Consider how the Wall Street Journal presents its (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125689890371418331.html) news stories. It gives you the headline and the opening sentences, then asks you to subscribe. But I don't subscribe to that paper, because I rarely want to read one of its news stories (and its opinions are available for free). But, if I could pay a small, one-time fee to read the occasional story, I'd probably pay that paper a few dollars per year. That's not a lot, but multiplied by a few hundred thousand extra readers it could add up. Indeed, newspapers could offer monthly subscriptions for regular readers as well as micropayments for occasional readers.

At the media panel, Greg Moore of the Denver Post said a couple of things of particular interest to this issue. First, he said that newspapers might have to print less frequently. Second, readers would have to pay for online content, eventually, for newspapers to survive and thrive. I can envision a newspaper that goes to press, say, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday. The print edition would be stuffed with ads, comics, classifieds, crosswords—stuff people like to touch and feel. They would be big, perhaps nearly as many pages as seven days runs now, so subscription rates could at least stay even while production and distribution costs dropped dramatically. This would be the answer to traditionalists, who actually enjoy getting their hands dirty reading the paper. (I would as soon eat dinosaur eggs for breakfast.)

Under such a scheme, the Post would raise revenue from print and online ads, print and online subscriptions, online only subscriptions, and micropayments for individual stories. Publications that used micropayments would probably want to make some significant portion of its content available for free.

Bloggers (the kind with actual readers) and strictly online publications might also be able to employ micropayments for more ambitious stories.

The key to micropayments, of course, is to make them easy. A PayPal account might get the job done, or perhaps PayPal could adapt its existing program to make micropayments easier. Most people aren't going to pay a small fee to read an article unless it's as easy as clicking a button or maybe two.

One publication that has already combined ads, micropayments, and subscriptions is The Objective Standard. The publication shows the first part of an (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/creed-of-sacrifice-vs-land-of-liberty.asp) article online for no cost. To read the entire article, one must subscribe or "Purchase a PDF of this article" for, in this case, $4.95. (Micropayments for journal articles or specialty articles can be higher than for regular newspaper stories.)

The more I think about it, the more I love the idea of micropayments. Don't saddle me with a long-term commitment. I have enough of those. Don't litter my screen with pop ups and flashing lights trying to sell me crap. (That said, a third option to a subscription or a micropayment might be to watch, say, a thirty second video advertising some product before reading the article. I notice that Fox already does this for online video.) Just give me the option of paying a small fee to read something that interests me.

This article has been brought to you at no cost by FreeColorado.com.

Comment by Anonymous: One cent or less is a micropayment. 25 cents (or $4.95) to read a single article (print your own hardcopy; I recently heard a radio ad saying color copies are now less than a cent apiece, but the details weren't specified, such as minimum quantity or contract length) is NOT; it's a macropayment, when you can buy the whole hardcopy newspaper for say 50 cents with dozens, if not hundreds, of articles (many from syndication). I agree, the process needs to be made easy, but it also needs to be made very low cost--I look at the marginal cost of reading another article, even if it's the only article I'm interested in (I've been interested in various archived articles behind pay walls, but the prices are generally steep, several dollars an article, whereas I have to watch every dollar I spend). I'm waiting for newspapers and other periodicals to address the issue of "clipping" online articles i.e. being able to send a copy (or a link) to a friend for no additional cost to read it. I think this is "fair use" under the copyright law as analogous to physical print copies and clippings.

Comment by Ari: Anonymous will forgive me if I decline to accept his or her arbitrary definition of "micropayment." What is considered "micro" and "macro" is hardly the central issue; what's important is that publications could start charging some small fee to read individual articles. Ultimately the level of payment will be what the market will bear, and it will likely vary considerably by publication and type of article. Physical clipping is not similar to e-mail forwarding, in that the forwarder retains a copy, whereas the clipper sends the physical original.

Comment by David Aitken: I'd seriously consider paying for content if I could pay less than 25 cents per article and get a bill on my credit card once a month or week for all the articles I've read during that period with no minimum. Show me the headline and the first paragraph for free. Might work really well for an aggregator, too, like if a Colorado site provided links from stories throughout the state, I'd probably pay for some from Grand Junction, Pueblo, CS, Vail, etc. Payments could be sent back to the originating paper or author.

Dropping Redbox Over Antitrust

November 2, 2009

I just upgraded my Netflix account, and I'll no longer use Redbox, the DVD vending service that I've used at the local McDonalds.*

A few days ago I learned about (http://www.insideredbox.com/worst-case-scenarios-if-redbox-loses/) "Redbox's antitrust case against several major studios." Redbox is seeking to force the terms by which studios sell videos, and that is wrong. A contract properly involves the voluntary consent of both parties. Redbox is trying to replace voluntary consent with political force.

And Redbox will not get another dollar of mine until it drops its antitrust suits. I called Netflix, on the other hand, and was assured by customer service that Netflix is not involved in any antitrust actions.

Redbox (http://redboxpressroom.com/) relates:

Redbox Files Federal Lawsuit Against Warner Home Video

For Immediate Release: August 19, 2009

Oakbrook Terrace, Ill.—Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, filed suit in Delaware Federal Court against Warner Home Video on Tuesday, August 18, 2009, to protect consumers' rights [sic.] to access new release DVDs. Redbox filed the action in response to new distribution terms imposed by Warner Home Video that would prohibit redbox from providing consumers access to Warner Home Video titles until at least 28 days after public release. ...

Federal Court Rules redbox Can Pursue Antitrust Suit Against Universal Studios Home Entertainment

For Immediate Release: August 17, 2009

Oakbrook Terrace, Ill.—The United States District Court for the District of Delaware announced today that it has denied Universal Studios Home Entertainment's motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit filed by redbox. ...

The Obama administration has signaled that it will ramp up antitrust persecutions. Predictably, various unscrupulous business have sought to take advantage of this by trying to get the federal government to step on competitors and suppliers. This is wrong. Businesses should respect private property and voluntary trade, not try to override people's rights with political force.

* I just called McDonalds corporate and was told that that its contract with Redbox has ended, so it's unclear to me whether any or all Redbox machines will be pulled from McDonalds locations. My local McDonalds still has an operating machine. Redbox also operates out of select local Walmarts and grocery stores. Update: I just learned from a local King Soopers manager that Redbox will expand into some of those stores.

Election '09 and the Separation of Church and State

November 4, 2009

Last year, I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-ii-religious-right-loses/) argued that the big loser in Colorado's elections was the religious right. Particularly here in the Interior West, Republican candidates who want to ram religious dogmas down people's throats by force of law tend to scare the living hell out of voters, and that's a major reason why Democrats now control all three branches of government in Colorado.

The general approach among Colorado Republicans seeking statewide or competitive congressional offices next year is to talk about the economy and downplay the "social" issues.

While I focus on Colorado politics and largely ignore races elsewhere, the three big races of 2009 may give an indication of where the Republican Party is headed, particularly with respect to the influence of the religious right. The three major results are these:

* In the New Jersey governor's race, Republican Chris Christie beat out Democratic Governor Jon Corzine.

* In the Virginia governor's race, Republican Bob McDonnell beat Democrat R. Creigh Deeds.

* In New York's 23rd Congressional special election, something very strange happened. Initially, the race featured Republican Dierdre Scozzafava against Democrat Bill Owens (not to be (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/11/not_that_bill_owens_--_the_oth.php) confused with Colorado's former Republican governor Bill Owens). But then upstart Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman garnered the support of grass-roots conservatives, prompting Scozzafava to drop out of the race. Owens beat Hoffman 49 to 45 percent.

So what does this mean?

Obviously the elections have implications far beyond the influence of the religious right. To some degree, the two Republican victories signal displeasure with Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress. Just as Obama benefitted last year from many votes against the other guy, so Republicans may be picking up protest votes this year.

But I am particularly interested in the dynamics of faith-based politics. I want to look at a few indicators, not conduct an exhaustive investigation.

Looking at New Jersey, Christianity Today (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/11/republican_chri.html) reports that "Corzine targeted Christie in an ad criticizing Christie's support of a constitutional ban on abortion and opposition of funding stem cell research."

The claim about the constitutional ban is a little tenuous; it dates to a 2003 (http://www.christiefacts.com/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpContent&htmlKey=choice&s=ChristieFacts) story in the Star-Ledger paraphrasing the former president of an organization that endorsed Christie in a 1997 race.

On his (http://christiefornj.com/issues/shared-values.html) web page, Christie is certainly no friend to a woman's right to choose, but neither does he call for anything like a comprehensive ban. Here's what he has to say about abortion and homosexual couples:

I am pro-life. Hearing the strong heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago at 13 weeks gestation had a profound effect on me and my beliefs. The life of every human being is precious. We must work to reduce abortions in New Jersey through laws such as parental notification, a 24-hour waiting period and a ban on partial-birth abortion.

I also believe marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman. While, I have no issue with same sex couples sharing contractual rights, I believe that marriage should remain the exclusive domain of one man and one woman.

It sounds very much to me like Christie endorses legal abortions in most cases and civil unions for homosexuals. His proposed restrictions are bad, but they're a far cry from the worst.

The Star-Ledger (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/chris_christie_promises_change.html) confirms this:

In an interview, Christie today outlined his own positions on social issues, saying he evolved from pro-choice to pro-life with the birth of his children but would not use the governor's office to "force that down people's throats." However, he said he favors restrictions on abortion rights such as banning partial-birth abortions and requiring parental notification and a 24-hour waiting period.

He said he favors the state's current law allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions but would veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage if it reached his desk.

Notably, Christie (http://christiefornj.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=466&Itemid=66) focuses on "cutting taxes, controlling spending and creating jobs."

An Associated Press (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13703660) article neglects to mention abortion, stating that the race "focused on New Jersey's ailing economy, its highest-in-the-nation property taxes and even Christie's weight." Craig Royer told the AP, "I'm tired of the Democrats. I voted for Chris Christie because he's not Jon Corzine."

In Virginia, "a quarter said their vote for McDonnell was also a rejection of Obama," the AP (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13704062) reports.

McDonnell (http://www.richmondmagazine.com/?articleID=8820ca41c0c677283494ebf538a97bbf) wants more restrictions on abortion, and he opposes even civil unions for homosexual couples. Yet it doesn't seem that he was particularly keen to run on social issues. McDonnell ran far away from a 1989 thesis he wrote taking a hardline religious conservative stance on a variety of sexual and reproductive matters. The AP believes that "McDonnell dominated the campaign's central issues: jobs and the economy."

(http://www.richmondmagazine.com/?articleID=8820ca41c0c677283494ebf538a97bbf) Richmond Magazine notes, "The moderator at the July 25 debate noted that neither candidate appeared to want to discuss 'culture war' issues in the campaign."

Of course, the fact that many Republicans are trying to simultaneously appeal to the religious right in the primaries and hide that fact in the generals remains troublesome.

Moving to New York, it's not hard to see why Scozzafava was hated by free market advocates as well as the religious right. Michelle Malkin (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/11/04/who_are_you_calling_extremist?page=2) writes:

There was no fiscal conservatism to balance her social radicalism. It wasn't merely that she was "pro-choice." She was also a proud recipient of a pro-abortion award named after eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

It wasn't merely that she favored higher government spending. It was also that she supported the stimulus, which every single House Republican in office opposed, on top of her support for the union-expanding card-check bill, on top of her ambiguous statements on the energy tax-imposing cap-and-trade bill.

In this case, the AP does see faith-based issues as important, (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13703702) claiming that Scozzafava quit "under pressure from the party's right wing because of her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage."

So what does Hoffman believe? In his election-night comments, he makes no reference to faith-based issues, choosing instead to (http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/home.html) talk about "freedom, sound fiscal management and citizen government."

Hoffman's (http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html) "issues" page deserves some comments.

Hoffman seems to have little idea what a free market is or how to defend it. He opposes the stimulus, which is good, but then he favors "a bill that puts real money in the hands of Americans to spend." So what are we talking about here? Putting the nation deeper in debt to hand out "free" money to people who didn't earn it?

Hoffman's notes on health policy are particularly telling. He writes, "Although universal health care sounds great in theory, we can't afford to do everything at once... I believe our first step should be to bring the spiraling costs of healthcare under control [How?]... Then, as the economy picks up we can work to insure everyone."

So now conservatives agree that it's the federal government's legitimate role to "insure everyone?" Wow.

Hoffman says he'd cut spending. But what would he cut? Entitlements, which threaten to bankrupt the nation? Apparently not. He would cut "wasteful earmarks," an insignificant portion of the federal budget.

Surprisingly, Hoffman is pretty good (from a free market perspective) on immigration, writing, "The answer... is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States—and to work here—while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes." He also looks good on gun rights, and he opposes cap-and-trade.

"Where do you stand on the issue of Roe vs. Wade?" Hoffman answers, "I am pro-life, period." Because apparently that's all the commentary the issue merits on a candidate's "issues" page. But is he serious? Does he oppose abortion even if the mother's life is at risk?

At best, Hoffman was a lightweight.

I don't have a good sense of the dynamics of the race or what voters talked about and cared about. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/nyregion/04district.html) claims that "grass-roots groups that have forcefully opposed Democratic economic and health care policies... rallied behind Mr. Hoffman."

The sense I get is that, while religious conservatives helped blast Scozzafava out of the race, Hoffman didn't play up the faith-based stuff too much with regular voters.

Interestingly, Marilyn Musgrave, ousted from her Congressional post by Colorado voters tired of her obsession with faith-based issues, played a role in the New York race through the Susan B. Anthony List, reports the Times.

The Hoffman vote, then, was a combination of disgust with the Republican candidate, disgust with the Democrats, and supporters of a variety of issues ranging from tax reform to abortion bans. It's the sort of messy race that allows just about everybody to claim some sort of victory.

Maine is also a curious case. Voters rejected same-sex marriage, which, as I've argued, is for many not a faith-based issue, especially given the alternative of domestic partnerships. At the same time, voters rejected tax restrictions and expanded medical marijuana. So, if you're a conservative, Maine went one for three. If you're a left-winger, Maine went two for three. I'm disappointed with the tax vote but thrilled about medical marijuana.

So what is the upshot? The Republican party remains schizophrenic. Because it is ambiguous about free markets and split on faith-based issues, its hope seems to rest on voters' discontent with the Democrats. And that's pretty pathetic.

Udall Harms Consumers

November 6, 2009

Senator Mark Udall pushed a law harming consumers, and now he is blaming other victims of his unjust law—credit card companies—for the harm that he caused.

As I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/05/credit-controls-punish-responsible/) wrote earlier this year, Udall advocated a law violating contracts between credit card companies and their customers. I summarized, "The new controls will have two main effects. They will ensure that the young and the poor have less access to credit. And they will make it harder for responsible cardholders to negotiate good terms."

I didn't write about another, short-term harm of the bill. Because Udall's controls make it harder for credit card companies to charge irresponsible borrowers higher rates, some of those companies responded by charging some higher rates immediately, before the law went into effect. This is a predictable response. If a credit card company thinks a customer might become a problem, say by getting overextended and missing payments, Udall's bill gave those companies the incentive to take action before the bill limited their ability to act consistent with their contract with the customer.

In other words, Udall screwed customers who might have faced higher rates in the future by sticking them with immediately higher rates.

This is a classic case of a legislator blaming his victims for the harmful consequences of unjust legislation.

So what is Udall's response? Is it to admit his mistake and repeal the unjust law? Of course not. Now Udall is pushing a new law to hasten the implementation of the old law.

Credit card companies have probably already responded to the bill, so the new law will not save anybody from higher rates. Nor will it save anybody from the harms of the initial legislation. Because credit card companies will have a harder time raising rates on irresponsible borrowers, they will be less likely to issue cards to riskier clients. In other words, Udall's bill screws the poor, the young, and those trying to get back on their financial feet. Udall will make sure that, rather than get less-favorable credit terms, some such people will get no credit terms.

As the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574499773767447650.html) explained on October 29:

But if customers are being taken to the cleaners, it is because U.S. lawmakers like Mr. Dodd sent them there. In May, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which bars rate increases without a 45-day notification. To reduce their risk under this law, banks in the U.S. are rushing to raise rates before it takes effect in February. Thus the Senator's latest political grandstand.

In the unlikely event that Mr. Dodd's new legislation passes, banks would limit their risk in other ways, such as canceling cards or refusing to extend credit to marginal customers. The unavailability of credit can also be a burden on struggling families, not to mention having a depressive effect on the economy.

What's amazing is that, even as he explains how his bill harmed consumers, he can't stop crowing about it or making empty promises to fix it.

In an October 29 e-mail, Udall writes:

The last thing families and small businesses need is their credit card company jacking up rates with no warning—but that's exactly what's happening. In the first six months of this year—as Congress was writing common-sense reforms—credit card companies raised rates an average of 20 percent, according to one study. It's wrong, families need immediate relief, and that's why I've introduced two bills to put an end to credit card companies' abuses. This is something I've been fighting for since I served in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I'm going to ensure we do everything in our power to prevent credit card companies from taking advantage of consumers. ...

Earlier this year, we passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act (Credit CARD Act) to prevent credit card companies from unfairly squeezing their customers with excessive rate hikes and predatory billing practices. That bill gave credit card companies until February of next year to implement many of the reforms. But instead of playing by the rules, credit card companies have been taking advantage of the implementation period to jack up already high interest rates even higher. The result is unfair rates that are further burdening families that were already struggling with debt.

I've introduced two bills to put a stop to this. One bill, which I introduced this week with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, would freeze interest rates immediately, giving consumers some immediate relief. The second, which I introduced last week, would move up the date for reforms to go into effect by more than two months, to Dec. 1, 2009, preventing companies from gaming the system and protecting consumers who play by the rules. This is like the classic story of David vs. Goliath—and I'm happy to take on Goliath.

If Udall wishes to catch a glimpse of Goliath he need look no further than the mirror.

In a November 5 e-mail, Udall continues:

In May, the president signed sweeping new legislation to protect consumers from abusive credit practices.

The bill, which I cosponsored, gave credit card companies until February 2010 to institute common sense reforms, like requiring advance notice of interest-rate increases, banning the practice of universal default, and protections for young people.

Instead of using this "grace period" to update their computer systems and implement the new policies, credit card companies put the squeeze on hard working, responsible credit card users by unfairly jacking up their rates.

Udall issued a (http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=316) media release to the same effect.

Udall is incensed that his bill prompted credit card companies to raise rates in some cases. But he apparently cannot even conceive of solving the problem by repealing its cause: his own bill.

Unfortunately, Udall is not the only legislator playing this game. The November 5 Denver Daily (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=6277) reports:

With Colorado Congresswoman Betsy Markey leading the charge, the U.S. House yesterday voted to move up the deadline for credit card companies to comply with federal credit card reform legislation.

The 331-92 vote came after Markey, D-Fort Collins, expressed great anger and frustration over credit card companies changing agreements—including raising interest rates on consumers by as much as double—in anticipation of the legislation. ...

"I am appalled at the complete and utter disdain with which credit card companies are treating their customers," Markey said in a statement following the vote.

And I am appalled at the complete and utter disdain with which Senator Udall and Representative Markey are treating their constituents. Udall and Markey should stop hurting people.

Amazing Primal Pancakes

November 8, 2009

Somebody recommended (http://primalliving.blogspot.com/2009/04/ricks-primal-pancakes.html) Rick's Primal Pancakes, and they are absolutely amazing. These are honestly the best pancakes I've ever eaten. I think it's something about the flavors of the coconut with the almond.

I used the recipe as listed, except I doubled it. The given recipe consists of 1 egg, 1/4 cup Almond Meal, 1/4 cup of coconut milk, 1/8 t cinnamon, and 1/8 t vanilla extract. They were a bit runny, so I think you could increase the ratio of meal to milk. (I imagine you could also use cow milk.)

I wend shopping this morning at Sunflower before I made breakfast. I was going to purchase almond meal, but it can cost over $10 per pound. Before I left, I read (http://www.ehow.com/how_5515780_make-almond-meal.html) Yvette Marie's suggestions for making almond meal. So I paid something like four dollars a pound for bulk raw almonds at Sunflower, then made my own meal. (I didn't sift the meal, as Marie suggests, but I don't mind it a little crunchy.) It turned out great.

Comment by Benpercent: Be sure to have some sort of leavening, like the milk in this recipe, when making almond pancakes. I got a recipe off Mark's Daily Apple that called for just meal, eggs, and some spices, and they were the most dense, god-awful pancakes I have ever eaten in my life. If you should not have the milk I have found a teaspoon of baking soda (per cup of meal) works wonders. Makes them taste virtually identical to wheat pancakes really.

Comment by Tenure: Will ground-almonds do in place of "almond meal"? I imagine they're the exact same thing, but just want to check.

Comment by Keath Cole: Sifting the almond meal really improves the texture. The batter is loose enough that you could consider making crepes with it. I would recommend adding a pinch of salt to the batter.

Low-Cost Tech Could Cool Planet

November 9, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091109/OPINION/911089996/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062) published November 9 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

If planet did warm, low-cost tech could cool it

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

In our last column we expressed skepticism that human-caused global warming will ever amount to much. We have little trust in the politically subsidized computer simulations responsible for most of the fuss. Obviously, natural causes play a major role in climate change, and historically carbon dioxide levels have followed—not caused—warmer temperatures.

The "precautionary principle" counsels us to act even if the risk is uncertain. Unfortunately, few environmentalists practice much caution regarding the economy. While the harms of climate change are speculative, the harms of widespread political economic controls are certain and severe.

But what if? What if the earth did warm from man-made (or entirely natural) causes, and what if this caused significant problems for people? If that were the case, then low-cost technology could quickly solve the problem, argue Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in SuperFreakonomics.

Levitt and Dubner have been accused of claiming a consensus for global cooling in the 1970s, misrepresenting other people's work, and other failings. We've read a number of these criticisms, and we've read the book. We (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/10/krugman-smears-superfreakonomics/) conclude that various detractors are smearing SuperFreakonomics to suppress its information. Read the book and reach your own conclusions.

The book devotes the last of five chapters to climate change. However, Chapter 4 sets the stage by describing "cheap and simple" solutions to various problems. For example, better hand cleansing in hospitals dramatically decreased deaths. Forceps have saved the lives of babies and mothers. Fertilizing crops with ammonium nitrate has dramatically increased yields. The polio vaccine wiped out that disease. Seat belts curbed auto deaths.

The final example of the chapter is a proposal to control hurricanes. Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures developed the idea based on a plan of British engineer Stephen Salter. The proposal is to employ a bunch of "large, floating" rings in troubled spots of the ocean. Waves of warm water lap into the rings, pushing the warm water down a tube and bringing cooler water to the surface. Goodbye hurricanes.

The chapter on climate change focuses on two other ideas floating around Intellectual Ventures for cooling the earth. One plan involves pumping sulfur dioxide through a long hose into the upper atmosphere, mimicking the cooling effects of natural volcanic eruptions. This would quickly cool the earth, yet the effects would rapidly disappear if pumping stopped. The other plan is to seed more clouds over the ocean.*

Cooling the earth with sulfur dioxide would cost an estimated $100 million per year, less than what environmentalists spend fear mongering. Dramatically cutting carbon dioxide emissions would cost an estimated trillion dollars per year, or 10,000 times as much.

Moreover, cutting carbon emissions wouldn't accomplish much. Beyond the problem of getting developing nations such as China to curb emissions—fat chance—"the existing carbon dioxide would remain in the atmosphere for several generations," Levitt and Dubner point out.

So, given that the sulfur dioxide pump is radically cheaper, safer, and more feasible, many environmentalists conclude that we should only limit carbon emissions instead. Al Gore thinks it's "nuts" to explore geoengineering solutions like the pump.

Environmentalists don't worry that volcanos emit sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, naturally cooling the earth. But many are dead set against humans doing the same thing. Why? Because, to the radical environmentalist, anything "natural" is good, and anything human is bad. Such environmentalists really don't care about the earth's temperature. What they care about is limiting human activity.

While geoengineering is the big take-home point, Levitt and Dubner challenge a number of environmentalist dogmas along the way. For example, "buying locally produced food actually increases greenhouse-gas emissions" because "big farms are far more efficient than small farms."

Myhrvold believes that wind and other alternative energies—touted by our "New Energy Economy" governor as a pretext for corporate welfare—"don't scale to a sufficient degree" to replace traditional energy. He adds that solar cells are not perfect: "only about 12 percent [of light] gets turned into electricity, and the rest is reradiated as heat—which contributes to global warming."

Meanwhile, the authors suggest, we should not forget the benefits of modern energy. Before the gas-powered automobile, people used horses, and this generated a great deal of manure. Imagine vacant lots with manure "piled as high as sixty feet." Imagine manure "lining city streets like banks of snow." Thank human ingenuity for automobiles and the oil that powers them.

In the 1800s, American lights relied on harvesting thousands of whales each year. Our authors write, "The new oil industry... functioned as the original Endangered Species Act, saving the whale from near-certain extinction."

We worry a bit about the book's treatment of a few topics such as altruism. Yet, while SuperFreakonomics may be a fancy title for plain old economics mixed with clever research, it offers a wealth of fascinating insights.

* November 13 update: Here's something not mentioned in the book: one young scientist thinks (http://www.miller-mccune.com/science_environment/a-rock-that-helps-out-in-a-hard-place-1563) CO2-eating rocks might help.

The McInnis Juggernaut

November 10, 2009

A number of my (http://bendegrow.com/2009/political-blackmail-behind-josh-penry-dropping-out-of-guvs-race/) friends are upset that Josh Penry has withdrawn from the Colorado governor's race, leaving Scott McInnis as the clear Republican frontrunner.

The word is that a political attack group threatened to hammer Penry if he stayed in the race. Welcome to politics. Such strong-arm tactics are hardly new in the American political arena. They are the norm.

The fact is that Penry trailed in fundraising, name recognition, and polling against Governor Bill Ritter. So, in retrospect, it comes as little surprise that the Republican establishment supported McInnis or that Penry decided to pick a fight he knows he can win.

Some guy named (http://www.danmaes.com/) Dan Maes also remains in the race, and he has about the same chance of becoming the next governor of Colorado as I do. There's also been talk of roping former Congressman Tom Tancredo into the race. I think that would be a disaster for the GOP. There are a lot of things I like about Tancredo (as well as a lot of points of disagreement), but he simply isn't governor material. He's too divisive, too polarizing. He always won his conservative district, but he would bomb in the Denver-Boulder corridor.

So that leaves McInnis as the presumptive nominee. Even though McInnis used to serve in Congress, I have little idea what his ideas are.

I find it amazing that his (http://mcinnisforcolorado.com/) web page features a "Scott on the Issues" button that offers exactly zero direct information on McInnis's views. Instead, the reader is directed to an (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Scott_McInnis.htm) OnTheIssues.org page. An "ideas" candidate McInnis is not.

So who is Scott McInnis?

Taking abortion as a good indicator of a candidate's relationship with the religious right, Lynn Bartels (http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_13480455) reports for the Denver Post:

Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis, for example, entered Congress as a pro-choice Republican, although he exited in 2004 having received a zero ranking from NARAL Pro-choice America, an abortion-rights advocacy group.

"He makes no bones that he changed his views while in Congress," said McInnis spokesman Sean Duffy.

Bartels (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13739171) follows up:

He voted against some abortion measures, supported others and once chaired the national Republicans for Choice.

"I personally don't support abortion," McInnis said in 1996, "but feel the decision shouldn't be made between a woman and the government but between a woman and her doctor."

He said Friday he no longer feels that way, although he has maintained his reputation as a political moderate.

"You grow older and you have kids and grandkids and friends die and you realize how important life is," said McInnis, 56.

At a November 3 event at Colorado Christian University, McInnis said, "I'm 100 percent pro life. I oppose gay marriage," Bartels reports.

(Maes, obviously trying to appeal to the state's social conservatives, added, "Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege, and it is a privilege that is ordained in the Scripture.")

Bartels summarizes McInnis's history with the issue of abortion:

The Rocky Mountain News in 1996 called McInnis a maverick on abortion.

He long had opposed partial-birth abortions and backed parental notification. But he opted to allow for privately funded abortions at overseas U.S. military hospitals, to let federal employees choose health insurance plans to cover abortions and to preserve federal funding for family-planning programs.

In 1995, NARAL tracked 21 roll-call votes. McInnis sided with their issues seven times.

From a civil libertarian perspective, McInnis is mixed, judging from the votes noted by (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Scott_McInnis.htm) On the Issues. In 2004 he voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But thrice he voted for an amendment banning flag desecration in violation of free speech and property rights.

I'll certainly have some questions for "100 percent pro life" McInnis. Does he want to ban abortion even in cases of risks to the woman's life, rape, incest, and fetal deformity? Does he want to overturn Roe v. Wade? Does he support the "personhood" measure likely to share the 2010 ballot?

Ritter (for whom I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) voted) is a tax-and-spend, corporate welfarist bungler, no doubt. Yet, even though Ritter also nominally opposes abortion, I don't have to worry about him trying to throw my wife in prison should she need to end a medically risky pregnancy.

McInnis couldn't possibly be any worse than Ritter on economic issues. But, as much as I don't want Ritter in my wallet, I certainly don't want McInnis in my bedroom or doctor's office. It remains to be seen which candidate will least frighten mainstream Colorado voters.

Outlawing Low-Priced Books Robs Your Wallet and Freedom

November 12, 2009

The following article was originally (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13763976) published online by the Denver Post under the title, "Why we should keep selling low-priced books."

Outlawing low-priced books robs your wallet and freedom

by Ari Armstrong

Some stores sell popular books to willing customers at low prices, and they must be stopped! At least that's what the American Booksellers Association (ABA) argued in an October 22 (http://news.bookweb.org/news/7130.html) letter to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.*

The letter, signed by the ABA Board of Directors, including Cathy Langer of Denver's (http://www.tatteredcover.com/) Tattered Cover, complains that Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Target sell some "hardcover bestsellers," including books by John Grisham and Sarah Palin, for only around $9. Moreover—horror of horrors—Amazon sells digital books for only $9.99.

The letter argues that selling low-priced books to people who want to buy them constitutes "illegal predatory pricing that is damaging to the book industry and harmful to consumers."

You might think that "lower prices will encourage more reading and a greater sharing of ideas in the culture," but you would be wrong, the ABA claims. Low-priced books will drive out "many independent bookstores," put book buying "in very few hands," and eventually allow "mega booksellers to raise prices," the ABA asserts.

The ABA's position ultimately is self-destructive. Free speech, and freedom of conscience more broadly, depends on property rights and voluntary association, liberties the ABA undermines.

Writers, publishers, sellers, and buyers have the right to agree to terms they find mutually beneficial. A publisher that wishes to prevent a retailer from selling a book below a certain price may properly set that as a condition of the transaction.

Once a retailer purchases books from a willing publisher without pricing restrictions, the retailer properly has the right to sell the book for any amount it deems proper. If the retailer wants to sell books below cost as a loss leader, give them away, or pay people to take them, that's between them and their customers.

When politicians control the physical conveyance of ideas, they can control the ideas themselves. As a villain in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged explains, "If you breathe the word 'censorship' now, they'll all scream bloody murder... But if you leave the spirit alone and make it a simple material issue—not a matter of ideas, but just a matter of paper, ink and printing presses—you accomplish your purpose much more smoothly."

The ABA helps establish the principle that people with guns—for ultimately brute force is what imposes Department of Justice rulings—can invalidate people's independent decisions. This same principle opens the door to outright censorship.

The ABA's position also rests on economic myths. Part of the cost savings of large retailers comes from publishers selling books in large orders. The ABA would force publishers and readers to eat the costs of more tiny orders.

Independent bookstores that cannot compete on price should find other ways to attract willing customers if they wish to stay in business. For example, Tattered Cover hosts many public events featuring authors and other speakers. (I spoke at a media panel hosted by the store on September 24.) Tattered Cover also carries a large selection of books that customers can physically look at and buy instantly.**

The ABA's suggestion that "mega booksellers" would eventually "raise prices" higher than what independent stores now charge is laughable. Not only will many competing booksellers remain in business despite low-priced books, but attempts to raise prices inevitably attract new competitors.

The ABA absurdly argues that low-priced books will cut off writers' ability to get published. As a book author, I can attest that writers today have unprecedented opportunities to publish their works. Amazon is particularly friendly to writers and publishers.

Tattered Cover does not carry my book, and if I had to rely on independent bookstores my book never would have been published. Yet I did not seek government action to force Tattered Cover's decisions. Tattered Cover has the right to stock the books it wants at the prices it wants, and it should respect the rights of others to do likewise.

We should expect better from the ABA and from Tattered Cover, often a champion of free speech in Colorado. Ultimately the business of ideas depends upon the integrity of the unforced mind.

Ari Armstrong is the author of (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter and publisher of FreeColorado.com. He lives in Westminster.

* See some of the resulting (http://news.bookweb.org/news/7140.html) media coverage.

** November 13 update: As somebody noted in the comments, Tattered Cover now plans to sell used books as well. The Denver Post has the (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13725424) story. Offhand this strikes me as a good idea. The standard fee for shipping and handling for used books at Amazon is $3.99, sometimes more than the price of the book. Tattered Cover can't offer as wide a selection of used books, but the customer can physically examine the used book and get it right away with no additional transport costs.

Comment by Allen: It's sad to see them do this. It makes one wonder how much of their sales come from books like this. One would have to think so given the fuss they're making over it. Could the loss of revenues from these sales be why they're expanding into selling used books?

Comment by Fester: This really makes me disappointed in tattered cover. If they are having trouble competing then it is up to them to try creative solutions for attracting customers, maybe expand their product line, or change focus, or reduce prices on certain books as a "loss leader" like you find at supermarkets in the hope that patron will purchase other more profitable items while there.

Face Gets Momentum

November 13, 2009

Last night (http://www.facevocalband.com/) Face performed at the Boulder Theater. I've said it three or four times before, and I'll say it again: last night was their best performance I've seen.

You can listen to (http://www.facevocalband.com/see_hear.html) clips from their latest album, Momentum, which they released at the concert.

Interestingly, Face has cancelled all of its December holiday shows. Their web page currently (http://www.facevocalband.com/calendar.html) claims, "Face will be out of town in December: More details coming soon!" It'll be interesting to see what the band has cooking.

I've been enjoying Face's performances now for several years, and I'm pleased to see the band continue to meet success. Their sound gets better and better.

(http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/122905.html) Back in 2005 I wrote, "Saying that Face is an 'a cappella group' is sort of like saying Jimi Hendrix is a 'guitar player.' It's true, but it doesn't really get the point across. Face rocks." Seriously, give them a try.

Their performances are heartfelt and personable. Last night the band brought up two former members to sing signature songs. They recounted a bit of their history together in between songs. The new album reveals the group's talent as arrangers and singers, but a big reason they have been so successful with word-of-mouth promotion is that audiences really enjoy sharing time with them.

The band also announced the successful birth of a member's new baby just days ago. As Pamela White (http://boulderweekly.com/archives/20090507/coverstory.html) wrote for Boulder Weekly, the wife of one of the band members carried to term another couple's baby. So congratulations on all counts.

Family DNA Matching Risks Police Abuses

November 18, 2009

(http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/06/dna-bill-ap-ignores-ap-report/) Earlier this year, I criticized a new law that allows police to take DNA samples from people they arrest for a felony, absent any criminal conviction. As the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_12312816) summarized, "The bill was amended to allow police to take DNA tests upon arrest but for the sample not to be processed unless a person is charged. The sample will be destroyed if no charges are filed."

As I noted, the law will "encourage police and prosecutors to arrest and charge people just to get a look at their DNA."

Now that Denver police have advanced a program to match crime-scene DNA to samples on record, it is no longer a question of whether the law will be abused, but when.

Michael Roberts (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/11/denver_da_mitch_morrissey_want.php) writes for Westword, "Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey... [has] been working with colleagues in the Denver Police Department's crime lab, among others, to prove the efficacy of a method able to connect DNA not in law-enforcement databases to samples from family members..."

Morrissey told Roberts, "We're running [a sample] against the DNA of somebody else whose sample we obtained legally."

Except that obtaining somebody else's DNA legally is now trivially easy. You just come up with some plausible complaint against a person and arrest him. Voila—a legal DNA sample.

So let's say the police suspect Joe Blow of committing some crime, but they can't easily find Joe Blow. But they know where to find Sam Blow, Joe's brother. If only we could figure out if the DNA we found belongs to Joe! All we need to do is get a look at Sam's DNA. And if Sam isn't feeling so cooperative...

I do not doubt that taking DNA samples from everybody in the population would help solve more crimes. Hell, we could get a database going with every single person's fingerprint, DNA, eye scan, special markings, and so on. We could also install every newborn with a barcode and GPS tracker. Update: CNN also (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/17/colorado.family.dna/index.html) carried the story on the DNA tests. Defense attorney Stephen Mercer told CNN, "If they want to drive down the street and do no-knock searches of homes, they would catch bad guys. But at what cost to our society?"

Or, we could retain our liberties. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

November 25 update: (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/panel-british-police-routinely-arrest-people-just-to-get-dna-samples/1) "Panel: British police arrest people just for DNA samples." Coming soon to a Colorado city near you?

Comment by Patrick Sperry: This is,in my opinion, yet another method of forcing testimony, including against yourself. I find that immoral.

Environmentalist Clowns

November 19, 2009

As environmentalists dressed as clowns protested coal-fired electric plants in Denver—see the reports from the (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=6439) Denver Daily News and (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13819745) Denver Post—(http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_KeithLockitch) Keith Lockitch prepared to give a talk at the Auraria campus that evening explaining the profound human need for industrial energy. (More on this soon.)

In the Q&A, Lockitch pointed to two quotes from environmentalists indicating that they don't want cheap, abundant energy, even if it is "clean" and "renewable."

Paul Ehrlich (http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7111.htm) said, "Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."

Amory Lovins (http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1977-11-01/Amory-Lovins.aspx?page=14) said, "If you ask me, it'd be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it."

Comment by Ari: Patrick Sperry writes in, "So, are those folks just anti human development or what? Heaven knows, why, that power might be used to power a C/T scanner that might be used to save someone's life after all!"

Independence Institute's 25th Anniversary Banquet

November 21, 2009

P. J. O'Rourke offered a perfectly delightful address at the Independence Institute's 25th Anniversary Banquet, held in Denver on November 19. He mostly blasted leftist policies but saved some of his best lines for Republicans. For example, he said that building a wall between us and Mexico would be a boon to the Mexican ladder industry.

I captured a number of interviews on camera:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKv5OvTVVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZmQU7N5Cgo

Environmentalist Clowns Threatening Human Life

November 21, 2009

Today's Colorado Springs Gazette published my op-ed, (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/reverse-89627-human-course.html) "Environmentalist clowns threatening human life," reviewing a November 18 talk by Keith Lockitch. (The online version is dated November 20, while the print date is November 21.)

See also (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/environmentalist-clowns/) additional quotes from environmentalists.

For the story about the environmentalists dressed up as clowns, see the (http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=6439) Denver Daily or (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13819745) Denver Post.

Here is the entire piece:

Environmentalist clowns threatening human life

Climate change threatens our nation. Pollution is the cause. We must reverse course now to save future generations from misery.

Contrary to environmentalist hysteria, the problem is not carbon dioxide warming the earth. Instead, our political climate of freedom suffers the pollution of environmentalist controls of our industrial economy.

On November 18, environmentalists dressed up as clowns rallied at the state capitol to demand that Colorado shut down a coal-fired electricity plant.

That night, Keith Lockitch, an environmental analyst with the Ayn Rand Center, explained in a Denver talk why environmentalist controls threaten human life and well-being.

People need industrial energy to live and flourish, Lockitch emphasized. Indeed, modern energy enables us to respond to climate disasters and weather extremes, natural forces that have always threatened human life.

Throughout human history and still today in undeveloped regions, droughts, floods, freezes, and heat waves have devastated food supplies and caused wide-scale suffering and death. What allows the developed world to largely escape such dangers is our relatively free, industrial economy.

Consider the droughts of the 1970s, Lockitch suggested. While the weather caused massive death and starvation in undeveloped regions of Africa and India, the United States suffered "only minor economic losses."

Americans respond to freezes by turning up their furnaces. If it gets too hot we turn on air conditioning. If one farming region suffers a freeze, drought, or other problem, we ship food from elsewhere. To learn about potential dangers, including bad weather, we turn on our electricity-powered televisions or computers.

Industrial energy allows us to live longer, healthier lives. If we get sick, we ride in oil-powered ambulances to electricity-powered hospitals. While people in undeveloped regions continue to die from smoke inhalation from cooking fires, we use clean gas or electric stoves. Yet many environmentalists would hamper industrial prosperity.

The political question, Lockitch said, is separable from the scientific question of climate change. Whether or not human carbon dioxide emissions will seriously contribute to harmful warming, free- market capitalism enables us as investors, entrepreneurs, producers, and consumers to respond to problems, whatever their causes.

Don't environmentalists merely want us to change from fossil fuels to renewable sources? Lockitch pointed out that prominent environmentalists opposed solar farms in the Mojave desert and wind farms off the shores of Massachusetts. Many environmentalists oppose nuclear power. Their goal is to limit human activity regardless of the availability of energy.

Lockitch outlined the problems with wind and solar. Americans currently use around 600 coal-fired plants. It would take 1,000 wind turbines on 40,000 acres of land to replace a single plant. Their production would require enormous costs.

Coal plants can expand or reduce output based on demand. "You can't turn on the sun, and you can't turn on the wind," Lockitch noted. At a coal plant the energy is stored in the coal itself. Wind and solar plants produce electricity at unpredictable times in uncontrollable amounts, and it cannot easily be stored for future use. What happens if you face an emergency during a blackout caused by low wind?

That's not to say that Lockitch is committed to fossil fuels. He pointed out that Rand wrote a novelized account of a motor with cheap, clean, and abundant energy.

To Lockitch, the question is not ultimately about fossil versus renewable energy. It's about freedom versus controls. On a free market, people can decide how best to use fossil fuels and what new energy sources deserve research and investment.

Does the future hold advances in nuclear power, solar collection, or some yet-unimagined source of energy? Free-market capitalism spurs productive development.

Environmentalists might enjoy clowning around and imagining a renewable-energy utopia. In the real word, our lives and well-being depend on modern industrial energy production. To protect ourselves we must defend free-market capitalism. That means we must clean up the economic pollution of environmentalist controls.

Ari Armstrong, the author of Values of Harry Potter, publishes FreeColorado.com.

Comment by Jason: This is one of the clearest pieces I've read on the necessity of economic freedom to deal with climate and environmental threats, and to make human life and prosperity possible. Keep up the good work. -Jason Goldsmith

People Vote for Freedom with Their Feet and Effort

November 23, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091123/OPINION/911229981/1021&parentprofile=1062) published November 23 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

People vote for freedom with their feet and effort

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

"Why are they all running to Colorado? What have they got down there that we haven't got?" So asks a villain in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. He complains about Colorado's primitive, lazy government that "does nothing outside of keeping law courts and a police department."

A young worker answers, "Maybe it's something you've got that they haven't got."

High taxes, economic controls, and intrusive politicians and bureaucrats kill production. Unfortunately, fearing Colorado's economic stagnation, the politically connected call not for more economic freedom but for more taxes. They act like doctors who prescribe bloodletting for anemia.

A recent Qwest-funded (http://www.metrodenver.org/files/documents/news-center/research-reports/TMCC_V_FullStudy.pdf) report from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation bears the title, "Toward a More Competitive Colorado." But some of the report's recommendations would lead to higher taxes, less competitiveness, and a weaker economy.

The report notes that Colorado ranks well in areas of health, education, and investments. Yet, rather than promote more of the Western liberty that made Colorado prosperous, the report worries that politicians aren't spending enough of other people's money on college, preschool, infrastructure (however that's defined), and welfare.

"A Gordian Knot exists in Colorado's Constitution that makes governing a challenge," the report complains. That seems to be code for "gut the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights."

Though especially concerned about education, the report declines to discuss freeing colleges from state controls, expanding competition for K-12, and cutting taxes so families can better afford college and philanthropists can donate more.

The only constitutional change we need is to repeal Amendment 23, which sets education spending on auto-pilot regardless of economic conditions.

Meanwhile, as the Daily Sentinel (http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2009/11/17/111709_1a_TABOR.html) reported Nov. 17, the Pew Center declared Colorado in "fiscal peril" because, darn it all, people get to vote on tax hikes.

Either people restrain the politicians or the opposite becomes true. The more the political class oppresses the people, the more people move away or reduce their production.

Rand's novel is about the nation's top producers going on strike against oppressive politics, some moving to Galt's Gulch where they can live in freedom. In Free to Choose, Milton Friedman warns that people vote with their feet, moving where they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.

This is true between states. Regarding last year's (http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/us-economic-freedom-index-2008-report-2) U.S. Economic Freedom Index, lead author Lawrence McQuillan summarizes, "People are moving to the freest states and fleeing the least free states."

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940286075109617.html) declared New York the "tax capital of the world." The paper noted, "According to Census Bureau data, over the past decade 1.97 million New Yorkers left the state for greener pastures—the biggest exodus of any state."

The same is true around the world: people tend to leave more repressive countries and move to freer ones. Recently we celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall, built by tyrants to keep an oppressed people from moving away.

Britain suffered a "brain drain" as their doctors sought to escape socialized medicine. When introducing the National Health Service, Aneurin Bevan bought off doctors for their political support, reportedly saying, "I stuffed their mouths with gold." Upon implementing the new system, he declared, "We now have the moral leadership of the world."

Yet many doctors suffered indigestion. Some found that this gold tasted a lot more like thirty pieces of silver. Others rebelled against the new political controls. They wanted no part of the "moral leadership" that put bureaucrats in charge of health. Some of these doctors moved to the United States.

If we go further down England's path, some doctors will move out of our country and cater to medical tourists. Others will retire early.

We've seen examples large and small of people giving up. Higher car fees have convinced some to sell the extra car or put off purchasing a new one. Some work less for taxable income and trade more goods and services (though such exchanges are supposed to be taxed, too).

Chris Edwards recently published disturbing (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/30/the-death-of-private-investment/) figures at Cato. He writes, "While consumption, exports, and the government sector were up, private investment has fallen through the floor." Fearing more federal political controls, Edwards calls this "the death of private investment in America."

Meanwhile, unemployment nationally has crept over the double-digit marker, despite (or partly because of) President Obama's "shovel ready" stimulus projects. No need to look very far to figure out what it is that Obama is shoveling. An (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9097853) ABC headline illustrates part of the problem: "Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist."

As one of our friends wondered, "You mean taking money out of the private sector, creating money out of thin air, and indebting future generations actually doesn't make us more prosperous?"

If we want to return to prosperity in Colorado and in our nation, we need less political interference and more economic liberty.

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.

Baked Pancakes, Cauliflower Puree

November 25, 2009

Recently I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/amazing-primal-pancakes/) talked about making almond meal and using it in primal pancakes.

I've since tried the almond meal in baked pancakes (a misnomer, I know, but I don't know what else to call them), and it's fantastic.

The recipe is very simple. Put two tablespoons of butter in a pie pan. Melt the butter in the oven at 450 degrees Fahrenheit. In a bowl, mix three eggs, half a cup of flour, and half a cup of milk. I've tried wheat flour, oat flour, and almond meal, and all work great. I haven't tried replacing the cow milk with coconut milk. Pour the batter into the pie plate, and bake for 20 minutes. (Shave off a couple of minutes if you use straight almond meal.)

One nice thing about these is you can put two or three cakes in the oven while you get the rest of breakfast ready; they aren't as labor intensive as regular pancakes.

Next (and unrelated), recently I purchased five nice heads of cauliflower from Target for a buck each. I steamed, pureed, and froze them. I used my new Tovolo silicone ice cube trays, which I really like.

The plain puree was also a great side-dish with butter and a little salt and pepper. I plan to add the dethawed puree to scrambled eggs and such, a la (http://www.deceptivelydelicious.com/) Jessica Seinfeld.

Dear Dean Singleton, Please Charge Me

November 25, 2009

Westword's Michael Roberts (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/11/a_letter_to_dean_singleton_fro.php) reports that "Dean Singleton... plans to start charging readers for lotsa online content at select MediaNews papers in California and Pennsylvania beginning in 2010." This is relevant to us in Colorado because Singleton also publishes the Denver Post. Are fees for the online Post in our future?

God, I hope so.

Good journalism is hard work. Good investigative journalism is especially hard and time-consuming work. People tend not do do a lot of hard work without compensation. (I imagine Roberts would confirm this.) Thus, journalism needs to pay.

Journalism can pay in one of three general ways: advertising, philanthropic contributions, and reader payments. Advertising can be direct or indirect; for example, (http://michellemalkin.com/) Michelle Malkin runs direct advertising, and her entire blog serves to advertise her books. (You'll notice that I advertise my own book, (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter, on my web page. And it makes a fine addition to the tree or stocking!) I would be interested in learning how much of the Incredible Shrinking Westword's revenues come from print versus online advertising. (While the weekly's print edition has gotten noticeably smaller, its online content has expanded dramatically.)

I doubt anybody is going to make a generous gift to the Post.

That leaves reader contributions to supplement advertising revenues. These payments can be by the piece or via subscriptions.

As I (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/10/could-micropayments-save-newspapers/) suggested earlier, I think papers (and it's funny even to still call them "papers") should give readers a choice: watch an annoying ad, pay a monthly or annual subscription, or pay to read a single article at a time.

How is that not the best of all worlds? Cheapskates can still read content for free, except they have to pay with their time by watching a real advertisement. Regular readers can subscribe, preferably for a low annual rate (I would seriously consider paying, say, $50 per year to read the Post online). And occasional readers who value their time can pay some token amount—perhaps an amount that varies with the ambition of the piece—to read a single article. As I also mentioned before, the key to this is to figure out a very-fast way to make micropayments (else there is no time savings).

The fact is that readers who value good content and don't want to waste time looking at ads will be prepared to pay to read that content. I absolutely hate the Post's online ads that pop up, block text, push text down the page, and otherwise annoy the living hell out of me when all I'm trying to do is read a spot of news. I would much rather pay a little than deal with those sorts of ads.

I think it's worth revisiting what Post editor (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/10/media-panel-discussion-continues/) Greg Moore said in September:

In terms of advertising being a means of supporting original [journalism]... right now advertising provides like 85 percent of our revenue. It's still a huge, huge, huge driver. It's a huge source of revenue. It's going to be probably for a while. But I think our survival—and when I say survival I'm not talking about the newspaper, I'm talking about our ability to do journalism—I think we'll have to shift to a different model. And I think that model is that the user will have to pay for the content that he or she consumes.

I don't think that the cat is out of the bag. I think that the record industry sort of proved that, the music industry sort of proved that you can change people's behavior. Napster, in the mid-1990s, everyone thought that would just sort of kill everything, and they put those people in jail, put them out of business, and now people pay for music. They do it differently—they don't buy albums anymore, they buy singles, but they still pay a lot of money for music.

So I think there's still hope for us, that we can sort of reverse this trend. As somebody said, I think the worst decision that was made by the owners of newspapers was to sort of be stampeded into giving away their content for free. But it doesn't mean that it's over.

Unfortunately, rather than quote somebody who knows what he's talking about, such as Moore, Roberts quotes some clueless (http://thisburgess.blogspot.com/2009/11/pay-me.html) blog post by Rob Burgess.

Burgess quotes survey results from (http://blog.newfiction.com/paid-vs-free/) NewFiction:

80 percent of consumers recently surveyed by Forrester Research say they would discontinue their favorite free print content if they were asked to pay for it. Less than 10 percent of respondents would agree to subscription models; only three percent would opt for micropayments.

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner nicely summarize the problem with this in their new book SuperFreakonomics: "There is good reason to be skeptical of data from personal surveys. There is often a vast gulf between how people say they behave and how they actually behave" (page 7).

If you ask people if they want to pay for something they now get for free, what do you expect them to say? They're going to give you some variant of "no."

But if a person actually has a choice of reading a great article and paying, versus not reading that article, in at least some cases the person is going to pay up and ask for more. (Again, I think newspapers would be smart to offer a third option of spending time watching an ad, probably in the form of a short video. These sorts of ads are already common on a variety of web pages.)

So Burgess's first argument is bunk. Let us turn to his second argument:

You ruined everything in the beginning by starting with giving everything away for free. It has now been almost 15 years since the Internet broke wide and you're just NOW getting around to asking people to pay for your content? I don't blame people for not wanting to pay for it anymore, why should they? Who would pay for something they can get for free?

The options are not "get free content" versus "pay for content." The other option is "get no content," at least as far as investigative journalism is concerned. With that as the alternative, paying doesn't look so bad after all. People "should" pay, and they should be willing to, if that's the only way to get hard-to-produce content they want to read. (Again, easy-to-produce content will remain free, and ads can help pay for hard-to-produce content.)

What Burgess seems to think ridiculous is Singleton's comment, "We have to condition readers that everything is not free." But Singleton's comment is perfectly sensible. Moore uses the example of paying for music online. Today many people pay to receive television stations that they could otherwise get for free, because the reception is better and the broadcast stations are packaged with cable-only stations. Consumers change their behavior all the time, even (or especially) after they say they won't.

There ain't no such thing as free journalism. If journalists aren't willing to work without compensation, philanthropists don't pay, and advertising doesn't pay enough, the only alternative is for readers to pay, if they want the benefit of the product.

Really advertising is a way of extracting a payment of time from readers. Again, I think papers should offer that alternative. I would much rather pay in dollars, as for me that would be the far less costly alternative.

Dan Maes Describes Top Five Issues

November 25, 2009

Dan Maes doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming the next governor of Colorado. This is a guy who lists under his (http://www.danmaes.com/qualifications/) "public service" qualifications: "Boy Scout Leadership as a teen and in his early 20's." Scott McInnis, on the other hand, served in the state legislature before spending twelve years in Congress. Maes has no political credentials. He has zero chance of winning the Republican primary, and if by some bizarre chance every other possible Republican candidate died first, Maeas would have zero chance of beating Ritter.

Nevertheless, Maes did respond to a question quickly, and that counts for something.

On November 24, Maes sent out the following e-mail:

I was speaking with a county chairperson today and the subject of leadership for the party came up. He expressed his unhappiness with the lack of leadership in the republican party. I do not think he was referring to the state office but rather to our elected officials and candidates. The question is...was he issuing a challenge to me or simply stating a fact?

Lesson one when talking to me, I actually do listen. Number two, I look for those messages one is really trying to communicate. Maybe he was just venting but perhaps there was more to it all especially in light of the so called attempt to provide leadership this week by those without the authority or credibility to do so.

I jumped in this race months before others did. Obviously, I had a lot of catching up to do; but more importantly, I sensed there was a leadership vacuum myself that someone had to proactively fill. That has been my style since I was a teen. When a position needed to be filled or a responsibility taken on, it was not unusual for me to stick my hand up for the job. Ah, you might have thought I was the sucker in the old days but all those rolls prepared me for what I am doing today. Boy Scout Troop Leader, Student Council Member and President, Senior Class President, Captain of the football team, manager and owner of businesses... you get the point. Many ask, why do it? It is just how God wired me I suppose and for better or worse, I am here trying to become a leader for the Republican party.

I will suffer the slings and arrows of those who would rather be leader. That is also part of leadership. I will continue to work hard in my attempt to earn the right to be your leader. Do actions match words?

Dan Maes

The People's Candidate for Governor

www.danmaes.com

Thinking that his campaign is rather Quixotic, I asked, "Hey Dan, I challenge you to describe five *substantive* differences of policy or ideology you have with McInnis. I will be happy to publish your reply on my web page."

This morning he obliged (sort of):

Hi Ari,

Responding to your question regarding differences in me and Scott McInnis is a bit difficult in itself because Scott rarely articulates policy in his forums and speeches. We tend to hear about his family, how long he has been in Colorado, and railing against Bill Ritter. His failure to articulate any real policy was the main reason for the recent Contract for Colorado which had Josh Penry and Tom Tancredo helping his campaign actually develop a message of any kind. Thus, I do not see any connection between this document and his past or future behavior and thus nothing to differentiate myself on.

I will leave the opposition research to you and I will not attempt to articulate where Scott is on any issues. I will tell you where I stand.

1. Pinyon Canyon—I await the facts from the Army. I will seek a mutually beneficial resolution via willing sellers/leasers if at all possible.

2. Taxes—I am a true fiscal conservative and for downsizing government, and reducing taxes to spur growth not just maintaining status quo.

3. Social Issues—I have said consistently that we must stop preaching and start reaching out for a more diverse party yet I stand firm on a pro-life, and pro marriage between a man and woman platform. Some claim to have recent "revelations" and a come to Jesus but do their actions match their words?

4. Qualifications—people confuse experience with qualifications. The Governor's office is an executive office not a legislative one. Legislative experience does not translate into executive experience. Scott has very little to no executive experience. I have 20+ years of managerial and executive experience. This experience is the core qualification for the office and our current president is a great example of a legislator turned executive.

5. Campaign Style—I am becoming very popular very fast because I connect with people and truly care about what is important to them. Ask anyone who has spent a few minutes with me and they can sense the genuine, honest, hard working person who wants to earn their support and work for them. This is not 1994 anymore. People want to be treated like they are the boss. They are more informed and educated than ever before. I recognize that and treat people accordingly.

Ultimately, after all the facts are considered, people perform gut checks and ultimately ask themselves, do I like and trust this candidate. They are discovering more and more that they like and can trust me. Maybe that is the reason the full frontal assault against any choice in this primary has happened so early in this election cycle.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your readers.

Dan Maes

Re-Energizing Colorado's Economy

Republican Candidate for Governor

www.danmaes.com

Perhaps I should upgrade Maes's chances from zero to one. But hell is a pretty big place.

Comment by moirom116: You think Maes has zero or now a one chance. I recall Doug Hoffman in the NY23 race having no legislative experience and no name recognition. And in a little over one month had support from across the nation and had moved ahead of the established GOP candidate. There is alot more time and a primary to take place. Many conservatives like myself are not tired of losing, but are tired of the same GOP establishment trying to force moderates down our throats. Why does Penry have to work so hard to convince the base that McGinnis shares our values and will Govern that way. If McGinnis wins the primary, I believe we will have 4 more years of Ritter. And hey, why not. If you look at there records, there is not that much difference between the two. Mike

Comment by Ari: Mike, First, it's "McInnis," not "McGinnis." Second, you can't just claim, without evidence, that "there is not much difference between" the records of McInnis and Ritter. To establish your point, you have to actually recount those records and point out the similarities, taking into account the differences. I will take you seriously as soon as you do that. To date, mostly I've heard a lot of people taking swipes at McInnis without bothering to make any substantial criticism of him. Such "critics" are engaging in exactly the sort of petty partisan bickering they claim to dislike. -Ari

Comment by moirom116: Ari, Sorry for the misspell. Secondly, McInnis is for the expansion of the Pinon canyon, While Penry and Ritter were against taking land from ranchers. McInnis has not said re would repeal the new registration laws that were enacted by Ritter. McInnis was pro choice, and has not said publicly his intention to be pro life. that would put him left of Ritter. Both McInnis and Ritter are against TABOR. Need more? Mike

Comment by Ari: What I need more of, Mike, is evidence. Please provide a credible citation to the effect that McInnis is "against TABOR." You are wrong about McInnis's statements on abortion. The November 8 Denver Post reports that McInnis said, "I'm 100 percent pro life."
http://bit.ly/2aOscd For my views on why abortion should be legal, see
http://bit.ly/UJeF5 I agree that McInnis's statements on eminent domain are a problem, but they are mixed. According to Rep. Steve King, McInnis said the government "is no longer threatening eminent domain in the Pinon Canyon expansion."
http://bit.ly/5lIeAk However, he also once said that the "need... for quality jobs" should be balanced "with the rights of Pinon Canyon property owners."
http://bit.ly/8bkAXy I want a governor who will defend property rights, not "balance" them. I need more than accusations, Mike; I need evidence. I will publish subsequent comments from you only if they are supported by credible evidence. It's time to shut down the rumor mills and lay out the facts.

Comment by Doug: I agree with you Ari, that when it comes to eminent domain, it should not be a question of balance. Condemnation is only justified when there is an overriding public need. McInnis has said repeatedly that Pinon Canyon expansion is "about jobs." Economic development of the military-industrial complex and job creation are not a legitimate justifications for the seizure of private property. The burden of proof is with the Army to demonstrate a compelling need in terms of national defense; not economic benefits.

Abolish the FTC: New Blogging Rules

December 1, 2009

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has imposed unjust new rules—(http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf) "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising"—that take effect today.

Eric Robinson (http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/new-ftc-rules-aim-kill-buzz-blogs) summarizes the nature of the rules:

[The FTC's rules] suggest that bloggers or other consumers who "endorse" a product or service online may be liable for civil penalties if they make false or unsubstantiated claims about a product or fail to disclose "material connections" between themselves and an advertiser. (Although Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's division of advertising practices, (http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/jennifer-vilaga/slipstream/ftc-bloggers-its-not-medium-its-message-0) told Fast Company that the Commission will focus on warnings and cease-and-desist orders, rather than monetary fines, and (http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/social_networks/ ftc_clarifies_blogger_guidelines_weve_never_ brought_a_case_against_somebody_simply_for_failure_to_disclose_139589.asp) told PRNewser that the Commission will target advertisers for violations, not bloggers. Another FTC official (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200910141225dowjonesdjonline000606&title=ftc-to-target-advertisersnot-bloggersin-new-guidelines) reiterated this.)

The new rules pose a variety of problems. The FTC has no legitimate authority to issue such rules, which defy the First Amendment and constitute censorship and the chilling of free speech. The rules are extremely broad, ranging from free review copies of books to Twitter posts. The rules are arbitrary and ambiguous, such that their precise requirements and penalties cannot be determined in advance. The rules thus open the door to political abuses. The rules are discriminatory in that they subject bloggers to different standards than print journalists.

The FTC is acting in blatant defiance of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore the FTC should be abolished and its rules rescinded.

First I summarize the basic arguments against the FTC's rules. Then I link to other commentaries about those rules. Finally I review and analyze the rules in some detail.

FTC's Rules Overreach and Violate Rights

1. The FTC's rules constitute censorship and onerous controls.

Censorship consists not only of forcibly restricting what people may say and write, but forcing people to say and write things against their judgment. In this case, the FTC is forcing people to issue disclosures regarding communications that do not in any way violate anyone's rights.

Edward Champion (http://www.edrants.com/interview-with-the-ftcs-richard-cleland/) points to an article by Caroline McCarthy for Cnet News indicating that the FTC rules apply to Facebook and Twitter posts as well. The FTC's Richard Cleland told McCarthy, "There are ways to abbreviate a disclosure that fit within 140 characters [Twitter's limit]. You may have to say a little bit of something else, but if you can't make the disclosure, you can't make the ad."

The FTC thus requires that any Twitter post that could be construed as an "endorsement" include a disclosure that meets the FTC's guidelines, within 140 characters. Such a policy limits the amount of information a user can post to Twitter or discourages the use of Twitter for certain purposes.

Champion notes that even an "Amazon Affiliates link" might trigger the FTC's disclosure requirements.

The FTC's rules constitute onerous controls in that they require bloggers and others to spend time complying with the FTC's rules. For example, the primary documentation of the rules runs 81 pages in length. The effort spent complying with the rules detracts from time available to write about other issues.

2. The FTC's rules are capricious and nonobjective.

The FTC's rules, by the agency's own admission, cannot be decided in advance in all cases. Instead, the FTC will "consider each use of these new media on a case-by-case basis for purposes of law enforcement" (page 8. Unless otherwise specified, page numbers refer to the FTC's (http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorsementguidesfnnotice.pdf) documentation of the rules).

The FTC's rules depends on what "consumers are likely to believe" about a communication, a subjective guideline that cannot be determined in advance (e.g., page 4).

The rules also extend to those who supply free samples or review books. Using the example of a video game manufacturer who sends a free copy of a game to a reviewer, the FTC states, "The manufacturer should advise [the recipient] at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance" (pages 79-80). What constitutes adequate compliance, and under what circumstances a supplier might be subject to enforcement, the FTC declines to detail.

In an (http://www.edrants.com/interview-with-the-ftcs-richard-cleland/) interview with Edward Champion, the FTC's Richard Cleland offered only guesswork in answer to whether a free movie screening constitutes compensation: "The movie is not retainable. Obviously it's of some value. But I guess that my only answer is the extent that it is viewed as compensation as an individual who got to see a movie."

Cleland chose to "reserve judgment" on another matter. Champion writes, "In cases where a publisher is advertising one book and the blogger is reviewing another book by the same publisher, Cleland replied, 'I don't know. I would reserve judgment on that. My initial reaction to it is that it doesn't seem like a relationship.'"

Cleland further told Champion, "These are very complex situations that are going to have to looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not there is a sufficient nexus, a sufficient compensation between the seller and the blogger, and so what we have done is to provide some guidance in this area. And some examples in this area where there's an endorsement."

Furthermore, as Champion reports, whether the FTC will target bloggers with fines—and how much the fines might be—remain points of ambiguity.

In other words, often there no objective way to determine when and how the FTC's rules apply prior to an enforcement action by the FTC.

As Walter Olson (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon1016wo.html) notes, "FTC enforcers will engage in their own fact-specific, and inevitably subjective, balancing before deciding whether to press for fines or other penalties. In other words, instead of knowing whether you're legally vulnerable, you have to guess."

Moreover, Olson notes, the receipt of freebies can "after some ill-defined point" create a relationship requiring a blogger "to disclose that relationship whenever writing about the institution in question."

Ann Athouse (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-going-after-bloggers-and-social.html) argues that the FTC has "deliberately made a grotesquely overbroad rule, enough to sweep so many of us into technical violations, but we're supposed to feel soothed by the knowledge that government agents will decide who among us gets fined. No, no, no. Overbreath itself is a problem. And so is selective enforcement."

The FTC's rules will therefore have a chilling effect on free speech. Those who are not part of an organization with legal representation—and those who cannot independent afford to pay lawyers—will now face a serious risk in publishing commentary.

Moreover, book publishers and others will face increased costs associated with complying with the rules, increasing the difficulty especially of small firms to publish works and advertise via review copies.

3. The FTC's rules open the door to further political abuses.

Political operatives inside government once turned to tax audits to punish ideological opponents. More recently campaign finance complaints have chilled free speech. The FTC's rules will provide yet another opportunity for political attack dogs to harass their opponents by filing complaints with the FTC based on perceived technical violations of the rules.

Even if the FTC clears the accused party, fighting such complaints can consume considerable money, energy, and worry. The possibility for such politically-motivated abuses will further chill free speech.

The FTC's Richard Cleland (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10368064-36.html) told Caroline McCarthy, "As a practical matter, we don't have the resources to look at 500,000 blogs. We don't even have the resources to monitor a thousand blogs. And if somebody reports violations then we might look at individual cases..."

McCarthy notes that "angry readers may use the regulations to attempt to get back at blogs they don't like." Ron Workman (http://ronworkman.tumblr.com/post/205391108/ftc-bloggers-must-disclose-payments-for-reviews-nyt) predicts that "the trolls will have a great time turning these offenders in."

4. The FTC's rules undermine the equal protection of the laws.

The FTC "acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure

requirements than reviewers in traditional media" (page 47).

The FTC's Richard Cleland (http://www.edrants.com/interview-with-the-ftcs-richard-cleland/) explicitly acknowledged that the FTC's rules subject bloggers to different standards than newspaper book reviewers.

5. The FTC's rules violate privacy.

A blogger properly has the right to choose what information to disclose and what information to keep private.

In some cases, the FTC's rules might require bloggers to disclose information that could compromise an individual's privacy or safety. For example, following in the footsteps of America's founders, someone might choose to write anonymously about a controversial political issue, such as abortion or homosexuality. A blogger with a material connection to the writer could not write about the anonymous work without disclosing personal information about the author.

The ability to write anonymously is central to the First Amendment, as it was central to American independence and the creation of the United States Constitution.

6. The FTC's rules are unnecessary.

In clear-cut cases of a seller paying somebody to promote a product, generally those parties do have a moral obligation to potential customers to disclose the nature of the relationship. However, most things that are moral obligations ought not be forced by law.

Publications large and small generally implement policies to assure readers or viewers that their material is free from financial incentive, or that any incentive is disclosed. Bloggers have an incentive to disclose relevant material connections in order to build trust with readers, and consumers tend to promote reputable sources of information. Producers and consumers of information tend to interact voluntarily to resolve potential problems of disclosure.

Those who hide a clear bias generally suffer exposure and ridicule, as John Lott (http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh) discovered after posting positive comments about his own work under an assumed name.

The government does have a legal responsibility to crack down on fraud. For instance, if someone claims to be an uncompensated reviewer but is in fact paid to write positive reviews, that would constitute dishonest fraud, properly the target of a criminal or civil suit.

However, short of fraud and overt calls for violence, what people say and write, and how they say and write it, is properly none of the government's business.

The FTC's rules rest on the fallacious doctrine that material conditions determine ideas. Granted that some people express views because of financial incentives, generally what matters most is a person's ideological conclusions. While ideology is necessary to integrate ideas, it can adhere to the facts of reality or stray from them. Often the more dangerous bias arises not from financial incentives but from ideological blinders, and obviously no federal rule can address that vastly more serious problem.

Even a direct and substantial financial connection need not indicate any financial bias. Often a paid spokesperson already supported the product in question. The much weaker and distant material connections the FTC's rules may also cover, ranging from free books to Amazon links, don't pose any serious problem of bias, and certainly not any problem serious enough to warrant threats of federal enforcement actions.

Whether a substantial financial relationship is present or not, and whether it is disclosed or not, consumers of information and products have a responsibility to critically evaluate claims. A consumer who takes a single blogger's weakly substantiated word about some product is frankly an idiot, and no federal rule can compensate for that.

The FTC's rules continue the trend of infantilizing American adults. The FTC presumes that American consumers are just too stupid to check the facts for themselves and properly evaluate claims about products. Yet such rules tend to generate a self-fulfilling prophesy: they encourage consumers to rely on government bureaucrats to do their thinking for them. Such rules promote Homer Simpson's mentality: "The whole reason we have elected officials [and their legions of bureaucrats] is so we don't have to think all the time." Thus, such rules undercut the self-responsible individualism that is the backbone of America's success.

Links to Other Commentaries About the FTC's Rules

(http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/10/regulating-speech-to-death.shtml) Regulating Speech to Death

by Diana Hsieh

October 5, 2009

(http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_13555803) A double standard for online speech

by Vincent Carroll

October 14, 2009

(http://www.edrants.com/interview-with-the-ftcs-richard-cleland/) Interview with the FTC's Richard Cleland

by Edward Champion

October 5, 2009

(http://ronworkman.tumblr.com/post/205391108/ftc-bloggers-must-disclose-payments-for-reviews-nyt) FTC: Bloggers Must Disclose Payments for Reviews (NYT)

by Ron Workman

October 5, 2009

(http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10368064-36.html) Yes, new FTC guidelines extend to Facebook fan pages

by Caroline McCarthy

October 5, 2009

(http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon1016wo.html) Where Did You Get That Keychain?

by Walter Olson

October 16, 2009

(http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/new-ftc-rules-aim-kill-buzz-blogs) New FTC Rules Aim to Kill the Buzz on Blogs

by Eric P. Robinson

October 8, 2009

(http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/ftc-going-after-bloggers-and-social.html) The FTC going after bloggers and social media is like "sending a government goon into Denny's to listen to the conversations in the corner booth and demand that you disclose that your Uncle Vinnie owns the pizzeria whose product you just endorsed."

by Ann Althouse

October 6, 2009

(http://dukeupress.typepad.com/dukeupresslog/2009/10/letter-to-the-ftc-on-guides-governing-bloggers.html) Letter to the FTC on Guides Governing Bloggers>

by Laura Sell, Senior Publicist, Duke University Press

October 7, 2009

Disclosures

The document, (http://ariarmstrong.com/disclosures/) "Ari Armtrong's Disclosures Unjustly Compelled by the FTC," has now been published. I will update it from time to time in an attempt to comply with the FTC's unjust and rights-violating rules.

As I note in that document, "I do not expect that the FTC's rules will be ambitiously enforced in the short-term. Many bad laws (and authorized rules) have no noticeable impact when they are first implemented. Often such laws and rules remain on the books for years before bureaucrats and prosecutors take advantage of them to actively violate people's rights. That does not make their existence more comforting."

Comment by Rational Education: "The government does have a legal responsibility to crack down on fraud. For instance, if someone claims to be an uncompensated reviewer but is in fact paid to write positive reviews, that would constitute dishonest fraud, properly the target of a criminal or civil suit."
Does this not once again open the floodgate to onerous government requirements to be complied with? This statement raises many interesting questions.(Of course the dominant altruist morality that severes self interest from objectivity, making it a either/or issue, confuses everything for most people!) The rule of caveat emptor is enough for most purposes.
Of course in case there has been actual fraud the recourse to law would always be available -but the burden of proof would be on the moving party, in my opinion. Jasmine

Comment by Ari: Jasmine, It's a little unclear to me what you're objecting to. You grant that fraud is legally actionable, and that successful legal actions must meet a burden of proof. That's my position. How does this "open the floodgate to onerous government requirements?" The only requirement is that you not lie to people in order to defraud them of their money. This is consistent with individual rights and necessary for them. -Ari

Comment by Rational Education: Ari, I did thoroughly enjoy the post and found it illuminating and informative. I was not making an objection but rather asking for clarification strictly for my understanding, since it was raising certain questions in my mind.
if someone claims to be an uncompensated reviewer but is in fact paid to write positive reviews, that would constitute dishonest fraud
I wasn't sure what context the above would apply in -again strictly my understanding.
Lying about compensation would be fraud quite separate and distinct from actual fraud or harm that someone could prove was done from a reviewer's biased review.
Jasmine

Comment by Mike: Ari, I used your statements as the blueprint for my own disclosure. In fact, I appropriated some of your writing wholesale (fully credited to you of course), for which I hope you take no offense. Thank you for these posts and for making something positive out of the fulfillment of a requirement that was every bit the waste of time you said it was.

Tea Partiers Get Partisan

December 11, 2009

I liked the Tea Parties better when they were about issues, not partisan politics.

Yesterday I received the following e-mail:

Defend the Republic Rally

Saturday, December 12th from 1:00 to 2:00pm

Colorado State Capital Building—West Steps

Colfax & Lincoln

Denver, CO 80203

Northern Colorado Tea Party is encouraging all supporters to attend this rally. We are asking for a voice in the debate taking place regarding the 2010 elections. If we want the GOP to listen to us, we need to show them we are a political force to be reckoned with here in Colorado.

As the war between the United State of America and the Progressives in both political parties continues to wage, the Tea Party and 912 supporters have stepped up and answered the call of duty.

Let us stand together at the State Capital on Saturday, united to make one single statement:

Principle Over Party in 2010

Speakers will include:

Mike Holler—Author of The Constitution Made Easy

Lu Busse—Leadership Chair for Co 912 Project

Dan Maes—Candidate for Colorado Governor

Tea Party & 912 Activists

See the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13947723) article by Jessica Fender or the People's Press Collective (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/12/mcinnispalooza-latest-news-from-mcinnis-campaign-tea-party9-12-groups/) review by Michael Sandoval for more background.

So the complaint is that Republican leaders have endorsed a candidate who might actually be able to win. I'm confused as to why this is some sort of grand sin. Anybody who thinks Dan Maes has any chance of winning the Republican primary and beating Bill Ritter is simply delusional.

(For the record, I'm registered unaffiliated, so I'll have no vote in the GOP primary. I have yet to decide whether any candidate in the governor's race will get my vote as the lesser of evils. I (http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/10/rittervote.html) voted for Ritter last time around.)

As somebody who has attended, written about, and spoken at various Tea Party and related events, I have to wonder about this overtly partisan turn of the Northern Tea Party. I thought this was about issues, not parties. I thought it was about liberty, not personality.

I challenge those organizing the December 12 rally to articulate their ideological differences with Scott McInnis, and their ideological affinity with Dan Maes. I must frankly question the motives of those unable or unwilling to do so. Please leave a comment or respond via e-mail.

Comment by Dave Barnes: "For the record, I'm registered unaffiliated, so I'll have no vote in the GOP primary." Ari, you can still vote in the Repub primary. You go to your polling place and register as a Repub and then vote and then complete the form to unregister. I have done this more than once. Staying "independent" gives you the chance to pick the primary of your choice for either positive or negative reasons.

Comment by Jennifer: Ari, I suggest you listen to the KVOR Podcast interview with McInnis or the Caplis and Silverman interview before that. McInnis can't even be civil or control himself. Look at the poles. HE HAS NO CHANCE. CO GOP better wake up. HERE COMES TEA AND 912. Even CO GOP knows this; why else would they be implementing such tactics on us small timers??? Can you say 70% at Caucus. BELIEVE IT BABY! McInnis is more of the same; he is a progressive. MAES IS THE REAL THING and will take it all the way!!! That's ok Ari. WE STILL LOVE YOU! -Jen

Comment by Ari: Jennifer, I simply do not think it is appropriate to use the Tea Party structure for partisan purposes. From the outset the Tea Party movement was billed as nonpartisan. Now some Tea Party members are claiming that the Tea Parties support a particular Republican candidate. The result of this will be to alienate non-Republicans as well as Republicans who support different candidates. Either the Tea Parties are a broad, idea-based movement, or they are partisan. They cannot be both. While all of a candidate's public statements should be considered, it is wrong to consider only those public appearances at which a candidate performed badly. Incidentally, the last poll I saw showed McInnis beating Ritter handily.
http://rockymountainright.com/?q=node/967 -Ari

Comment by Ari: By the way, I suspect that the person most happy about the Tea Party's support for Dan Maes, other than Maes himself, is Bill Ritter.

Comment by Jennifer: David, I was a registered unafiliated and I used to think this was showing both parties I knew best. I did not want to assoicate myself with either, and I still do not like or approve of how either parties are operating. Then I realized, I could make more of an impact by registering R or D and participating in Caucus. THIS IS EMPOWERMENT. THIS IS HOW TO MAKE AN IMPACT. CAUCUS, CAUCUS, CAUCUS This would turn my 1 vote into as many as 7Who could argue one holds much more weight?? Ali, I agree with you totally. The conservative grassroots groups, especially the TEA Party and 912 groups, have repeatedly gone on record in stating they will not and do not endorse candidates. All my associations in these groups are non-partison, based on founding principles, values, and our founding documents. All groups I associate with state wide operate under the model to Educate, Empower, and Activate. CAUCUS is going to be key for us taking our country back. I would be interested to know which Teaparty is claiming support of a candidate? I have not heard such, and if they do, that group does not reside under the Colorado Coalition umbrella, and may be a rogue entity. My previous comment was my individual opinion. Members are empowered with information by these groups so they can select the candidate that is best for them. Dan Maes is that candidate for me and my belief system. Furhtermore, NONE OF THE GROUPS I BELONG TO OR ASSOICIATE WITH STATEWIDE HAVE ENDORSED ANY PARTY. In fact, Tea Party and 912 groups have BASHED both parties equally; they are equal opportunist! Finally, I know for a FACT that the organizers of the only TEA Party Candidate Search forum held to date in Colorado for 2010 election (NOCO Tea Party) openly invited all candidates and provided an unbiased equal platform for each to speak. Please site your sources. Such a generic statement is not accurate. Please see this poll for comparison to yours: http://www.denvergop.org/polls.php Naturally, since most Tea Party and 912 group membership are limited govt/free market people, they would naturally lean right; as such, i chose this GOP pole.

Comment by Ari: Jennifer, I did not claim that a Tea Party officially endorsed Maes. But the capital rally, supported by the Northern Colorado Tea Party and the local 9/12 group, was obviously partisan in nature, and therefore, I believe, an inappropriate use of the Tea Party structure. -Ari

Liberty In the Books

December 13, 2009

With Amanda Teresi I co-moderate Denver's Liberty In the Books, a monthly reading group that discusses free-market literature.

UPDATE: Please see the new (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/libertybooks.html) home page for Liberty In the Books, which includes links to review questions.

I strongly recommend that others around the country start up their own free-market discussion groups. I believe that our nation is at a crossroads and that advocates of liberty need to step forward and articulate the case for economic freedom. One critical element of effective free-market activism is familiarity with relevant economic principles and history. Participants in a discussion group can help educate each other as well as offer support and encouragement for free-market activism. With that goal in mind, here I describe how the Denver group functions and what we're reading.

Please note that I cannot personally evaluate or endorse other reading groups that might use my recommendations or discussion notes. Thus, potential participants are strongly encouraged to independently investigate any other group claiming to use discussion notes for Liberty In the Books. Amanda owns the rights to the name, "Liberty In the Books." I own the copyright to any material I write about the group or about selected readings. Thus, whether you use the name "Liberty In the Books" is between you and Amanda. I suggest you pick a unique name for your group and perhaps say something the the effect that you follow the Liberty In the Books model, without claiming any formal ties or endorsement. Groups are free to distribute my review questions at will, so long as no claim is made that I endorse any group other than my own.

If you have an interest in starting an economic liberty reading group in your area, how should you proceed?

The first thing to do is to refine your purpose. Amanda and I decided to focus on the relationship between economic theory and history. Thus, the complete title of our group is "Liberty In the Books: Economics In Action." I do NOT want to discuss the arcane debates between the Austrian and Chicago schools. I do NOT want to discuss the finer points of Austrian praxeology versus positivism. I do NOT want to discuss libertarian anarchism versus the minimal state. (I'll discuss such things elsewhere, but not in this group.) Instead, the purpose of the group is to learn about the application of basic free-market principles to modern and historical political policies. It is a "political economy" group in the traditional sense of that term.

So far the Denver group has read the following works:

* Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp) Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'"

* Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man

* Thomas Sowell, The Housing Boom and Bust

* Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson

* Alex Epstein, (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp) "Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company"

Later I'll post discussion questions for works the Denver group has read. (I'll use the blog label "Liberty In the Books.")

Your group needs clear leadership. Amanda and I co-moderate the Denver group, and our decisions regarding the group are final. You might opt for a more democratic structure (though I think that may invite pointless and time-wasting debate). I choose the readings for our group in consultation with Amanda. (Obviously I'm open to suggestions from other members.) Another discussion group I'm in selects readings by informal, mutual agreement.

After you decide to start a group, you need to get members. You might want to start a very small group among friends. In that case, you can simply contact your interested friends and set up meeting times. Otherwise you can advertise for the group via existing activist networks in your area.

Another reading group I participate with, the (http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/asrg.html) Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, successfully advertised for members with Facebook ads. You can also issue media releases and post your information on public calendars.

How should you handle membership? I've now participated in three Colorado discussion groups, and I've experienced no problem with troublesome members. Instead, I've really enjoyed getting to know others from the community and discussing important ideas with them. Nevertheless, I do think it's important to have membership guidelines, just in case you need to ask a disruptive participant to leave.

I endorse the Atlas guidelines: "The goal of the group is to better understand [the reading material] in a friendly and constructive way, not to engage in acrimonious debate or proselytizing."

Following are the guidelines I sent to the Liberty In the Books membership:

The purpose of Liberty in the Books: Economics in Action is to provide a fun forum for free-market advocates to discuss economic principles and history and their application to the important issues of the day, with the goal that members will be better able to publicly articulate the case for free markets.

Members should strive to regularly attend meetings and read the selections. Readings generally will run less than 100 pages per month and will cover various areas of policy as well as basic economic principles. Some readings will be available online, others through special reproduction rights acquired by the event's organizers. Occasionally members will need to purchase a book, which typically will provide readings for several meetings.

In order to keep the discussions interesting and topical, members should focus their comments on the reading material, though of course they may draw upon additional information that sheds light on the readings.

The group assumes a general support of free markets, enabling members to discuss matters of history and economics in greater detail than would be possible if members fundamentally disagreed about economic liberty. While membership is open, the moderators may, at their discretion, limit discussion that falls outside the purpose of the group.

While the group will discuss economics in history and theory, discussion should not assume any prior, specialized knowledge of history, economics, or policy, other than what is provided by the selected reading material. Discussion should remain accessible to any intelligent layperson familiar with the reading material, rather than veer into highly technical issues of interest only to a few.

While the moderators welcome feedback and advice from members, the moderators' decisions pertaining to Liberty In the Books are final. Moderators may, at their discretion, begin with a short presentation, invite outside discussion leaders, establish other parameters for discussion, ask disruptive members to leave, alter the location or time of meetings, change future reading selections, and in other ways guide the group.

Members are the guests of the club's organizers, who will strive to make Liberty In the Books consistently fun, inspiring, and informative.

Where to meet? If you are meeting with a small group of friends, where everyone knows each other well, you can meet at someone's home. However, if you plan to start a larger group with more open membership, I strongly encourage you to meet at a public location, such as a bookstore, library, or coffee shop. I've found that (http://www.borders.com/) Borders Books is often particularly open to reading groups. The Denver group meets for two hours. Meetings of 1.5 hours also work well, and longer meetings may suit your group's needs, though you'll need to plan for a break.

To organize meetings, I suggest a Google group or a comparable method of communicating with members. (Make sure you get somebody's permission to add them to a such a group.) You need to set a reliable meeting location in advance (and check on the location close to the meeting), assign the reading material, and send out review questions and any other related notes.

How should the moderator conduct the meeting? I basically serve as the moderator for the Denver group, in collaboration with Amanda. You might want to ask for volunteers to help moderate.

The moderator has two key roles: start and end the meeting on time, and keep the discussion focussed on the reading material. The moderator must use some discretion in deciding when to cut off tangents. Obviously a major goal of the group is to apply knowledge of history and economics to modern problems, so discussion is bound to stray from the reading material at times. However, a meeting that constantly veers off track into marginal (or heated) debates or unrelated topics will tend to alienate the better members.

The moderator should strive to get everyone involved in the discussion without making anyone feel pressured to talk when the person would rather just listen.

A meeting that devolves into rancorous debate between two or three participants is a disaster.

I have found that, unless a reading group consists of friends who know each other and the reading material well, discussion questions form the basis of an effective meeting.

I write the review questions for Liberty In the Books. Diana Hsieh writes (http://www.exploreaynrand.com/1957/) excellent review questions for the Atlas groups.

The moderator should be guided by the review questions without being bound by them. The goal is NOT to cover every single question and to spend the same amount of time per question. Rather, the moderator should use the questions to get the discussion started and keep it basically connected to the reading material. Some questions are more important than others, and some questions can be omitted from the discussion.

Moderating a good discussion group is an art. A good moderator is sort of like a good pilot; passengers usually only focus on what the moderator is doing when the flight gets bumpy. Your job is to keep the discussion going smoothly and to point out the nice views.

Participating in a local free-market discussion group can be enormously rewarding. You can deeply enrich your knowledge of economics and history. You can find motivation—and motivate others—to actively promote economic liberty. And you can make and maintain important friendships. If you are not already part of a reading group in your area, why not join an existing group or start one yourself?

Scott McInnis on Eminent Domain

December 14, 2009

In the comments to my recent (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/dan-maes-describes-top-five-issues/) post about Dan Maes, "Mike" reminded me about a proposal to expand military lands around Piñon Canyon.

Lynn Bartels (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13964834) writes for the December 10 Denver Post, "Republicans opposed to the military's Piñon Canyon expansion project are disappointed that property rights weren't addressed when party leaders unveiled a new platform and rallied around gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis."

Here is how the Post's article summarizes the issue: "The Army wants to [expand] its 235,000-acre Piñon Canyon training maneuver area by almost 100,000 acres. The Army has promised to acquire the land only from a willing seller or through a long-term lease, but landowners in the impacted areas in southeastern Colorado fear their property will be seized, adversely-affected or the military will eventually want even more land."

It is important, then, to distinguish between expansion of the military lands and the use of eminent domain. Property rights do not always protect the owner from being "adversely affected." For instance, unless you live in an HOA that controls for such things, your neighbor might paint his house an ugly color, park ugly cars in front, and otherwise do things that incidentally reduce the value of your property. So we must limit the discussion to actual violations of property rights, such as the use of eminent domain to forcibly seize property from those unwilling to voluntarily sell it.

(http://community.gjsentinel.com/2009/11/05/the-army-pinon-canyon-and-scott-mcinnis/) According to State Representative Steve King, McInnis said the government "is no longer threatening eminent domain in the Piñon Canyon expansion." Apparently, then, McInnis's support of the project assumed that eminent domain would not be used.

However, the Fifth Amendment states that private property may be taken for public use for just compensation. Do McInnis's critics wish to claim that government ought never use eminent domain, even though the Constitution explicitly authorizes it? That's my position, but I think McInnis's critics need to detail their views. If Republicans are going to beat up their candidates for considering eminent domain for an obviously public use, that's a high bar, and one that should be set intentionally rather than as a pretext for partisan attacks.

Another comment by McInnis on the matter is more troubling. According to the Post, McInnis said, "Balancing the deep need that Colorado has for quality jobs with the rights of Piñon Canyon property owners requires leadership and dialogue."

I believe that property rights should be consistently protected, not "balanced" against some alleged need to forcibly seize property for somebody else to use. I would be interested to learn if McInnis's Republican critics believe that eminent domain should be abolished across the board, or if they merely want to restrict the practice to somebody else's property.

In the meantime, it would be helpful if McInnis would further clarify his views on eminent domain and property rights.

Comment by Doug: The question is whether or not the expasnion of Pinon Canyon is "an obviously public use." It it's about jobs, as McInnis says, is that a public use? A governor should not obstruct economic development, but a governor should do all that he/she can to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens of the state. A governor should not be an agent of the federal government, even the Department of Defense. A governor should not promote the interests of one economic sector; defense contractors in El Paso County, at the expense of another economic sector; agriculture in SE Colorado.

Comment by Ari: Doug, You have not answered the question. Do you believe that eminent domain is ever appropriate for government projects? True, the creation of jobs is not legitimately a "public use." But if the creation of jobs is incidental to a useful government project, then is the use of eminent domain justified? I completely agree with you that "a governor should do all that he/she can to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens of the state." Unfortunately, various critics of McInnis seem to hold only him accountable to that standard. Some people seem to want to magnify any flaw of McInnis and forgive any flaw of any other candidate. It is rather uncharitable to assume that McInnis had only the interests of the federal government in mind. I do not doubt that he legitimately thought the project would enhance military performance as well as bring jobs to some Coloradans. I do not believe that justifies the use of eminent domain. What I am asking from Republicans is consistency in principle. I'm tired of Republicans who invoke principles only when convenient for partisan attacks. -Ari

Comment by Ari: Ah, Doug has also posted a comment here:
http://bit.ly/6oZGda Doug believes that "Condemnation is only justified when there is an overriding public need." But how is that standard to be determined? Also, let's not forget that McInnis did not commit himself to the use of eminent domain for this project. He explicitly said that it wasn't being pursued.

Comment by Doug: I appreciate your concern that conservative principles should be consistantly applied to all candidates. That's only fair. Actually, I think McInnis is being more honest than other candidates in stating clearly that his support for expansion is about jobs. Others have trumpeted their patriotic motives, pretending that their positions have nothing to do with economics. McInnis has become a target for us anti-expansion people because we feel like he has went after us pretty agressively first. Frankly he gives us more to work with on the issue and in reponding to his position, we have an opportunity to speak to him and all other candidates as well. Those who are silent, or politically correct on the issue don't give us anything "news worthy" to react to. But I agee with you that the same standard should be applied to all of them. While McInnis says that the Army has taken eminent domain off the table, he knows that's not true. As recently as July the new Sec. of the Army, John McHugh refused to make a "no eminent domain" pledge to Senator Udall, say that he wouldn't do it, "under the rubric of not making promises that I can't keep." The Feds will never relinquish any little bit of their eminent domain power in any meaningful way. Never. They'll only express intentions and preferences that have no long-term legal weight. For politicans, being against eminent domain is a safe political position because they don't think they can do anything about it. (I happen to disagree. I think that the state CAN do something to check the Feds on this.) But they think it's safe to make promises regarding things that are outside of their control. Ritter did the same thing during the last campaign. Andrew Romanoff and John Salazar are the only ones who've gotten beyond meaningless no-eminent domain rhetoric and commited to permanent no-funding legislation. So unless Republicans are forthcoming with a strong position against expansion, look for mass defections by Republicans to these Democratic candidates in 2010.

Comment by Anonymous: Since government jobs (including military) do not PRODUCE anything, the only growth the expansion would bring to Colorado is more people living on taxpayer dollars, resulting in more consumers. Every dime they spend at your local business was taken from you to begin with. Military use of land doesn't really equal a public need for the land...come on. Yes, we need a strong military, but is this land crucial to that end...really? Besides whose property will they want next time? Maybe it will be yours!! If you haven't learned by now, our government will never stop taking from the people until we say NO. Absolutely NO!

Face Featured on NBC's Sing Off

December 15, 2009

Congratulations to (http://www.facevocalband.com/) Face, Boulder's all-vocal rock group, for their appearance tonight on NBC's competition (http://www.nbc.com/sing-off/) Sing Off.

I was disappointed that Face was one of the two bands voted out of the show tonight, out of eight contestants. But those who know Face know that vote is not any indication of their talent or musical force. Guys, your fans are thrilled to vote you back onto our island.

I just noticed that Face's new album, Momentum, now sells at iTunes. If you want to get a better feel for Face's tremendous talent, check out this album or the group's previous two albums. (Forward also sells through iTunes.)

I thought that Face was an obviously better singing group than several of the groups that made it through the first round, though I really enjoyed all of the groups. (My other two personal favorites of the night were the SoCals and Noteworthy.)

I was scratching my head by Face's song selection; they picked "Living on a Prayer" by Bon Jovi. I thought the song is too popular, Face didn't give it any particularly unique reinterpretation, and the song doesn't let the group's vocal strengths shine through. I wondered, though, if the show's producers restricted what songs the bands could sing. If I had made a list of ten songs I'd have liked to see Face sing as their opener, "Living on a Prayer" wouldn't have made the list. Face's fans know the band has some extremely strong "signature" songs that would have been much better for the show (if allowed).

Several of Face's covers I like much better than the original recordings, including "Home" by Marc Broussard, "Calling All Angels" by Train, and "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey. I also really like Face's version of "O Fortuna" and "On the Turning Away."

As an aside, my wife Jennifer made a brief appearance on the show, because NBC filmed Face performing at (http://www.nissis.com/) Nissis, the Lafayette restaurant owned by the same person who owns the design firm where Jennifer works.

I've been a fan of Face since I heard them perform at Nissis four years ago. I was frankly nervous to hear them sing, as I believe they were following the amazing (http://www.davebeegle.com/) Dave Beegle, and I thought there was no way an all-vocal group could compete with that. Face proved me wrong in a hurry (though I don't know anybody who can match Beegle on an acoustic guitar.) I even began a (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/100605.html) first and (http://www.freecolorado.com/bw/122905.html) second opinion column for Boulder Weekly with a discussion of Face.

I think I reflect the sentiments of all your fans, guys, by saying that we're extremely proud of you. I hope the NBC show allows a lot more people to discover your talented and inspiring voices. And don't stop believing.

Comment by Mr. Benson: My thoughts exactly about the song selection. It doesn't do them justice. I would have preferred either Calling All Angels, like you said, or my personal favorite, Safety Dance. Nonetheless, I thought they much better than the Christian group from Tennessee. They were so boring! Oh well, more chances for us to see them around the Front Range, I guess!

Review Questions for Epstein's Essay on Standard Oil

December 15, 2009

As I recently (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/libertybooks.html) noted, Liberty In the Books, which I co-moderate, reviewed Alex Epstein's essay, (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp) "Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company."

I strongly recommend that free-market activists join a reading group in their area—or start a new one. See my (http://freecolorado.com/libertybooks/groups.html) notes for some ideas about how to do that. (Alternately, if you live out in the boondocks, you can follow the Denver group's lead on your own.)

Following are my review questions that we used to guide our discussion. Remember, the point of review questions is to inspire discussion and keep it basically attached to the assigned reading. There is no need to discuss every question on the list. Page numbers here refer to the printed edition; I also include the section headers. This reading, assigned in advance of our meeting, worked great for a two-hour discussion.

1. Describe the views of John D. Rockefeller expressed by:

a) Henry Demarest Lloyd, 1881 (Pages 29-30)

b) Ida Tarbell, 1904 (Page 30)

c) Howard Zinn, 1980 (Page 31)

d) Paul Krugman, 1998 (Page 31)

2. What is the view of free markets expressed by Ron Chernow and John Sherman? (Pages 31-32)

The "Pure and Perfect" Early Refining Market

3. What is the theory of "pure and perfect competition?" (Pages 32-33)

4. What is Epstein's basic economic critique of the doctrine of "pure and perfect competition?" (Page 33)

5. What were the benefits of kerosene to human life? (Page 33)

6. What caused the dramatic increase in kerosene refineries from 1859 to 1864? What were some of the problems with earlier refineries? (Pages 33-35)

7. What was the trend in refineries from 1865 to 1870? (Page 35)

The Phenomenon

8. What regional advantages contributed to Cleveland's oil refineries of 1863? (Page 36)

9. What were the characteristics of Rockefeller's first refinery? (Page 36)

10. What in Rockefeller's background contributed to his success in business? (Pages 36-37)

11. In what specific ways did Rockefeller improve efficiency, expand markets, and advance technology in his industry? (Pages 37-39)

12. What is "vertical integration," how did Rockefeller practice it, and what are the benefits? (Page 38)

13. What was the state of Rockefeller's venture in 1870? (Page 40)

The Virtuous Rebates

14. What was Ida Tarbell's view of the railroad rebates granted to Rockefeller, and what is Epstein's criticism of Tarbell? (Page 41)

15. Why did railroads grant Rockefeller rebates? (Pages 41-42)

16. Were Rockefeller's practices "anticompetitive?" (Pages 42-43)

The Missing Context of Standard's Rise to Supremacy

17. From 1870 to 1880, what challenges did oil refineries face, what was the growth of Standard Oil, and what was the shift in oil prices? (Pages 43-44)

18. Why doesn't Epstein believe that cartels can succeed? (Pages 44-45)

19. What was the strategy of the South Improvement Company, and what were the results? (Pages 45-46)

20. What was the Pittsburgh Plan, and what were the results? (Pages 45-46)

From 10 to 90 in Eight Years

21. According to Epstein, what motivated Rockefeller to buy out various competitors? (Pages 46-47)

22. Did Rockefeller's treatment of some competitors to "a good sweating" constitute "predatory pricing?" (Pages 47-48)

23. What was the state of Standard Oil in 1873 and 1874? (Pages 48-49)

24. What arguments did Rockefeller make to competitors to persuade them to sell their businesses to him? (Pages 47, 49)

25. How did the Pennsylvania Railroad attempt to compete with Standard Oil, and what was the result? (Pages 49-50)

26. How did Standard Oil operate from 1870 to 1880, and what happened to the level of oil production and to kerosene prices? (Pages 50-51)

The 1880s and the Peril of the "Monopolist"

27. Did Standard Oil operate according to standard antitrust theory in the 1880s? (Page 52)

28. What was the "peak oil" theory articulated in the mid 1880s? Was was the problem with this theory? (Sound familiar?) (Page 52)

29. Why did Rockefeller expand oil production in the 1880s, what did he find, how did he cope with "skunk oil," and what did this do for Standard Oil? (Pages 52-53)

30. What new competitors did Standard Oil face in the 1880s? (Pages 53-54)

31. What was the difference between Standard Oil and government monopolies? (Pages 54-55)

The Standard Oil Trust and the Science of Corporate Productivity

32. What was a trust, and what legal problems did it overcome? (Page 56)

33. What were Standard Oil's successes as a trust? (Pages 57-58)

34. What were Rockefeller's skills as a business manager? (Pages 59-60)

35. What changing market conditions did Standard Oil face from 1899 to 1914, and what happened to the company's output and market share? (Page 60)

36. What were the journalistic and political responses to the successes of Standard Oil? What was the motivation of this reaction? (Pages 61-62)

How Stupid DRM Is Killing E-Books

December 16, 2009

I will defend the political rights of publishers and resellers to use digital rights management (DRM) for electronic books if they wish. I'm not convinced the practice makes for good business. As it stands, DRM is preventing me from buying an e-reader and e-books.

Meanwhile, with my shelves mostly full and without much room to expand my collection of printed books, I'm planning to be selective in buying paper-and-ink books. We live in a mobile society. People frequently change jobs and move. In some parts of the country lots of people spend considerable time on busses, subways, or trains. The market is ripe for e-books, yet the production and distribution of e-books sucks.

This is not a problem of technology. With modern software it is trivially easy to convert a book to an electronic format. (Indeed, practically all books are printed from a digital file.) While I have not used one of the e-readers, I am convinced that the technology makes the text look quite nice and readable. The good Doctors Hsieh have (http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/12/pauls-kindle-dx-review.shtml) debated various aspects of the Kindle, but they agree the text looks nice. I imagine that new generations of e-readers will be easier to use and more versatile. (By the way, feel free to peruse my (http://ariarmstrong.com/disclosures/) Disclosures Unjustly Compelled by the FTC.)

But compatibility issues are hell on consumers. If I buy a Kindle, I cannot even read Amazon's e-books on my Mac, though Amazon has released a PC reader and claims a Mac version is on the way. More importantly, if I buy Amazon e-books, I cannot read them on any competing e-reader (except the iPhone or iTouch, which uses the standard backlit screen rather than the cool text-friendly, low-power screen).

I love Amazon, but forbidding customers from reading Amazon e-books on other readers strikes me as pathetically stupid and short-sighted.

Contrast the situation with e-books to digital music. True, iTunes uses unique encoding, and its songs do not work with other players. But it is trivially easy to convert iTunes music to the standard mp3 format. Amazon might consider the fact that I've purchased mp3 files from Amazon to play on my iShuffle, but I have purchased exactly zero e-books from Amazon because of the compatibility problem.

Meanwhile, Barnes&Noble's e-books will only read with that company's exclusive software. Nook, with an "expected ship date" of February 1, is priced at $259, which is, surprise surprise, exactly what the Kindle is selling for. They are both ridiculously overpriced. The Sony Pocket e-reader costs only $199. It doesn't have wireless, but I don't want wireless! [December 19 Update: I changed "wi-fi" to "wireless" for accuracy. The Kindle is wireless but not wi-fi, while the (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2490621/nook_versus_kindle_which_is_the_better_pg2.html?cat=15) Nook is both.] I would be perfectly content with a USB cable. The problem is that Sony doesn't sell the e-books I want to buy. So I can get a more-economical reader that won't read the books I want, or I can get a clunky, overpriced Kindle. My solution is to buy neither.

While Amazon is great at selling books, it sucks at producing e-book readers. So why not sell me e-books that I can read on an inexpensive reader made by somebody else? With a standardized format, I suspect that a number of producers would make a good, inexpensive reader.

I understand that some publishers are whining about e-books. Get over it. Publishers have two options: they can adapt their products to the digital revolution, or they can die. Publishers should insist on a standardized format, or at least sell reasonably priced, DRM-free e-books themselves.

Let's take an example. I'm interested in buying Karen Armstrong's The Case for God. Both Amazon and Barnes&Noble sell the e-book for $9.99. But both of those versions have sucky DRM that makes them far less valuable to me. What is the solution of (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307269188) Random House, the publisher (via Knopf)? They will sell you an e-book! The hardback costs $27.95. And the e-book, which does not have to be printed, bound, stored, or shipped, costs... $27.95. Gee, thanks, Random House.

And publishers wonder why people aren't buying as many books? Do you seriously think I'm going to pay $27.95 for an e-book that has a marginal production cost approaching zero and that I can buy hard-copy elsewhere for $16.34? If Random House sold DRM-free e-books at a reasonable price, I'd be happy to buy them, and the publisher would get a much higher profit margin relative to selling through Amazon or Barnes&Noble.

Some readers may have noticed that my own book, (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter, currently sells only in soft cover. But it will become available in DRM-free digital format soon. (Whether it will sell through Amazon's Kindle system or other e-systems remains to be seen.)

Standard text formats already exist. They're called HTML and pdf; you may have heard of them. But God forbid that publishers sell books in a format that consumers can easily read.

Update: After reading several comments, I thought I'd further contrast Apple and Amazon.

Apple started life as a computer company that excelled at making great hardware that works seamlessly with good software. On this platform Apple built iTunes, a retail store.

Amazon started life as a book retailer and tried to build an integrated digital book program on top of this. The problem is that the iShuffle and other Apple players work great, while the Kindle is an overpriced technological piece of gossa. I mean, it's relatively cool, but it's nothing like the e-reader I'd like to buy. (I certainly don't want wireless or a tiny keyboard built in.) If Amazon produced the e-reader equivalent of an iShuffle, that would be one thing, but it doesn't.

Another difference is that, when I buy a song from iTunes, I own that file. I can copy it to disk, back it up, and control the way I use it. If I were to buy a digital book from one of the major sellers, my "library" would be established by the selling company. The seller can alter my library. Thus, it feels a lot more like renting books than buying them, and I don't like that. If I buy a book, I want to buy it and be in control of the file. Screw online "libraries." Just send me the file that I pay for. I neither need nor want Amazon or Barnes&Noble to "manage" my library.

The standardized mp3 format works great for music. Practically any modern digital device will play an mp3. I will buy e-books when they are similarly portable and convenient.

December 16 Update: Another obvious difference between iTunes and e-book "libraries" is that I can import all of my music into iTunes. It will import standard CDs as well as mp3s. Try importing a Barnes&Noble e-book into your Amazon library or vice versa. This is forbidden, which again creates a major barrier to buying e-books in the first place.

Comment by mtnrunner2: I had to laugh at the price comparisons you cited, and they totally make your point. Bummer. It sounds like the e-book business is suffering from a partial case of the mind-numbing stupidity with which the music industry faced the digital age. It took a technology company (Apple) to eat their lunch last time, and it will probably take a tech company to lead the industry this time. I actually heard rumors of an Apple tablet, but I don't know if that will happen. Adobe PDF is a totally universal format, and it has encryption/security, which should satisfy publishers. I wonder why they don't just use PDF.

Comment by Kendall J: DRM makes smart business sense until one e-book channel reaches a dominant state. This the exact strategy that Apple used, making its format difficult to copy (and illegal since ripping from a burned cd violates copyright) until such time as its iTunes store front became the dominant e-channel. Only then did Jobs advocate for open standards. I wrote about this a while back. http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2007/02/thoughts-on-thoughts-on-music.html What you have a standards war going on by channel owners. Nook vs. Kindle, BN vs. Amazon. Open standards destroys value in the channel by making switching costs easy. Amazon could care less if you buy a Kindle if you dont' then buy books from it's store. Same for BN. The monetization is in the ongoing revenue stream not in the hardware sale. I have an HP inkjet printer. I can't use the cartridges for it in other brand printers. This has hardly killed the printer market. ebooks are hardly dying. I think the claim that DRM is killing them would be hyperbole.

Comment by Ari: I appreciate your comments, Kendall. However, my point is precisely that the "monetization" is restricted because people like me won't buy any e-books or e-readers in the current environment. I don't think the comparison to ink cartridges holds up; the ink is a an integral part of the printer's operation, whereas an e-book is merely a means toward displaying a particular text to a user, where other means are available (mainly paper-on-ink). Obviously my language about "killing" is hyperbole; I discuss the current market for e-books in my post, and so far as I'm aware that market is growing. But I do think that the market for e-books is considerably limited due to the hassles I describe, and I don't think digital books will really explode until the formatting issues are resolved.

Comment by Clay: Something which you didn't note was that DRM only punishes honest consumers. Essentially DRM says to paying customers "Prove you aren't a thief!" while making their experience much more complicated than it has to be. Less scrupulous readers will simply go get DRM-free torrents and not worry about paying the publishers for their intellectual property. Essentially, this is a problem with publishers who will only be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. As mtrunner2 pointed out, it took Apple capturing a near-monopoly(temporarily) in the music player biz to challenge the music recording industry by putting them in a feast or famine position. They were then required to make what the industry believed to be a bad choice, in the face of an even worse choice, which the music biz has subsequently profited from enormously. I don't think that Amazon wants to have DRM on their Kindle books, or on their Audible books for that matter(though they apparently won't take it off even if the author doesn't want it on: see Cory Doctorow), but it is apparent that the publishers are terrified that if they give the average consumer books without DRM that they will be sharing them around all over the place with their friends and acquaintances. Unfortunately, those of us who wouldn't do such a thing(which I believe is the vast majority of their customers) must be punished in the name of the tiny minority who would.

Comment by Clay: But the printer ink market is absolutely ridiculous and nearly everyone acknowledges this. Ink sells at a rate more expensive than perfume. There was recently an article that went to the top of Digg which pointed out that for the home consumer that it is actually cheaper to buy cheap new printers for the ink than to buy ink. No offense, but that business model is completely messed up. Also... ripping your own CD may or may not violate copyright law, but is it really immoral?

Comment by Kendall J: My only point Ari, is that when a market is growing it is not necessary nor does it necessarily make sense to grow it as fast as humanly possible if that growth will be to the detriment of your business and business model. History has shown that with products whose marginal cost approaches zero that there are significant network effects and standard setting, i.e. the fight to make sure that your platform becomes the de facto (such as with the ipod) is absolutely critical. Yes, it bothers some people to have to be beholding to a particular channel but then consider that these people are not the early adopters that these companies want to make sure helps their platform become dominant exactly because the things you wish for are, in the early periods, detrimental to their business. The printer cartridge example is relevant, but in exactly the aspect we discuss here. Monetization means profit, not revenue or volume. If I sold printer cartridges that fit everyones printers, or if I made my printer so that it accepted competitive cartridges, then I would in very short order still be able to sell a boatload of cartridges, but because I've removed a source of competitive differentiation, I would see my profits immediately shrink. In the case of a new market such as ebooks, yes, volume would take off more quickly, but my profit, as a bookseller would plummet, *because* my marginal costs are close to zero. Monteization is about growing the industry so that it remains profitable at every point in the value chain (or at least in my point in it). This is common lesson in business schools, and the answer is, do not grow your business at expense of your source of advantage. Otherwise, in the end, everyone will be buying iPods, and not your mp3 player. The iPod is the perfect example of this. I'm curious to your evidence that the "market is limited" or is this simply a feeling.

Comment by Ari: Kendall, I haven't seen any survey data regarding people's irritation with the current chaos of e-publishing. But, extrapolating from my own experience, it makes sense that things which are a hassle to purchase and use tend not to attract as many customers. How much has this slowed down the expansion of digital publishing? I don't know, but I'm guessing dramatically. In fact third parties do compete with HP in making compatible ink cartridges; see Office Depot. But I still think you're missing some significant differences. Unlike with DVDs, a specific ink cartridge is designed for a specific printer, whoever makes that cartridge. I think it's more useful to look at the wars between VHS versus Betamax and Blu Ray versus HD DVD. With those formats, the digital formatting was inherently tied to a physical product: a tape or disc. The whole point of e-books is that they are downloadable. Also, Blu Ray is a format that anybody can build for. Wiki notes that Toshiba abandoned HD DVD and started building Blu Ray machines. But can a third party build an Amazon e-book reader? No. (Except Apple, which doesn't feature the cool text-friendly screen.) Your argument is that Amazon will make money with the sale of e-books more than with the sale of Kindles. But Amazon would sell a lot more e-books if anybody could read an Amazon e-book on any reader. So I just don't see how your "monetization" argument supports the use of exclusionary formatting. Notice that Amazon at least is working on readers that will function on desktops, as iTunes always has. Obviously Amazon libraries can import DRM-free books in pdf or html formats. But the key question is this: will Amazon libraries be able to import books purchased elsewhere, as iTunes will import mp3s purchased elsewhere (such as through Amazon)? As I noted in an update, Amazon is good at selling stuff but bad at making gadgets. If Amazon were as good as Apple at making gadgets, and if it sold an inexpensive, bare-bones Kindle (without annoying wi-fi and mouse-scale keyboards), I probably already would have purchased one. But Amazon is not Apple. iPods rock; Kindles suck. So I don't think Amazon will successfully follow Apple's model. Indeed, I think Amazon may be setting itself up to lose the formatting war and lock itself out of the e-book market. If, on the other hand, Amazon let any third party build machines that read Amazon e-books, Amazon could "monetize" the e-books without loading people down with the Kindle. Amazon's "source of advantage" is NOT the Kindle. That is the company's source of pissing off customers like me. Amazon's "source of advantage" is a great retail network with good search engines and an easy-to-use purchasing interface. If I could use that interface to purchase e-books that worked on an e-reader that I like, I would buy e-books from Amazon today. Instead, I am wavering between buying hardbacks or e-books from Barnes&Noble, which at least will read on my Mac. (I would definitely buy from Barnes&Noble today if their e-books worked on the Sony Pocket reader.) -Ari

Comment by Clay: On the face of it, I would say that the Kindle was way out in front of other readers, and that price combined with DRM kept lots of people out of an unclear market. If Amazon had been able to throw off DRM they would have probably won the ebook reader fight by now and B&N, and Sony, etc.. would simply be left in the dust. The chief advantage that I can see in the Kindle right now is that when I move from device to device my books are sitting there waiting for me bookmarked at exactly where I left off in the previous device. I would very much like to have something like this for a media player as my biggest glitch right now is moving from house to car and not having smooth transitions from one media device(my laptop, or desktop, and my portable media device(s).

Comment by Allen: Ari, I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to write so much and make such strong claims over something that you admit you don't use. The Kindle as a device is wonderful. It does not suck. The issue you have isn't with the hardware but their ecosystems. The problem is that your complaints don't show insight, just impatience. In 1998 my complaints about MP3s players would have been similar. The only exceptions would've been storage space on the device. And, this is a big one, there is no MP3 equivalent in publishing. They don't have standard format. The comparisons between the kindle and the iPod are baffling. As I mentioned, there is no industry standard for ePublishing. The MP3 was long established by the time Apple finally entered the market. Even when Apple did enter the market, they were severely restricted by the music companies. This is no different today for Amazon. Until that changes, the ecosystem will not be able to grow in the ways we consumers would like it to be. It's perplexing as to why you blame Amazon for these restrictions and for ePublishing's lack of file formats or for things like DRM. I'm also not sure why you call the nook and kindle overpriced. $60 seems a fair valuation for the difference between a device that is nearly always on the internet versus one that isn't (btw, Kindle does not have wifi; it uses sprint's 3G). I realize you may think that's too much but, as you know, the market is larger than just you. Think of it this way. Even by 1970s standard for quality, price, and reliability, the model T was absolutely horrible. Yet we don't speak about the model T the way we do the Pinto even though, given the choice, we'd be far better off with the Pinto. Likewise, we don't point out how worthless the model-T was given at how few driveable roads existed back then. eBooks have just begun. These are the first devices of their kind. It will take some time for that road network to grow and for prices to come down.

Comment by Ari: Allen, You don't seem to be tracking the gist of my arguments. My problem is with the hardware AND the "ecosystem." I simply do not wish to buy a machine with a miniature keyboard and wi-fi. The low-end Sony reader, which looks more like something I'd actually want to use, is only $60 less, but my larger point is that few producers are making e-readers precisely because of the compatibility problems. In other words, the market in e-readers has been stunted BECAUSE OF the way that e-books are sold. There certainly is an "industry standard" for text: it's called pdf. (HTML is another industry standard, and any e-reader should have no trouble reading both.) The problem is that sellers of e-books refuse to use the industry standard, and instead sell books that can only be read with proprietary software, which is what makes the e-books unreadable by third-party hardware (unless specifically enabled by the seller). I don't know whether the retailers or the publishers are more to blame for the current state of affairs. I don't really care who is most to blame; if they want an expanded market, they should figure it out jointly. If Amazon would enable all third parties to produce gadgets that read Amazon's e-books—a move that may require publishers' approval (I'm not sure)—then, I believe, Amazon would vastly expand its e-book market. As it stands, if all I can get is proprietary e-reader software, I'm leaning toward the Nook, which means that I'll buy zero e-books from Amazon, rather than many. Or I may buy an iTouch, which can read both Amazon and Barnes&Noble e-books, in which case Amazon will get either all or none of my e-book business. Or I might just stick with ink-and-paper books until the e-book market improves. No critic has written anything to cast doubt on my major claim: incompatibility issues have significantly stunted the e-book market and made e-books dramatically less useful to many existing and potential customers. -Ari

Comment by Allen: Ari, I do get the jist of your arguments. I just don't agree that the reason are very good. Minor point -> Kindle doesn't have WiFi. Major point -> PDF is not an industry standard for publishing text. It doesn't much more and really is different. It's really no more different than claiming that MS Word is an industry standard for publishing text. As for HTML, that too is not an industry standard for eBooks. It's a derivative of SGML that was created for http requests and the internet. At best one could argue that today their exist standards that the publishing industry should use. Unfortunately these standards are about as good as .wav. It wasn't until the mp3 standard came around that digital music started to grow. Wav files were ill suited for life beyond a single albumn burned onto a CD.
I agree that more needs to be done to bring about cross devices. I just feel that you're picking on a toddler for knowing how to walk but being incapable of out sprinting a 12 year old. eBook readers are only a year or three old. Give them time to grow.

Comment by Ari: Allen, 1. Amazon advertises the Kindle as a "wireless reading device." You cannot buy a kindle without the wireless function, which no doubt adds considerably to its cost. 2. PDF certainly is an industry standard for publishing text. My wife is a graphic designer, and pdfs are common for printing text. The Kindle, Nook, Sony, and iTouch will all display pdf files. 3. HTML too is an industry standard. In fact, Amazon states to publishers, "We suggest that you upload your content in HTML format, as Amazon DTP converts all uploaded content into HTML first." http://bit.ly/7TFKAc In other words, Amazon is working from straight HTML files, then converting these files to a proprietary format. 4. I'm not "picking on a toddler... incapable of sprinting." I'm picking on a teenager still wearing diapers. -Ari

Comment by Diana Hsieh: The PDF format is great, but I don't see it working for e-books. PDFs give you a hard layout for each page: that's precisely what makes the format valuable is that the layout doesn't vary from one computer to another. Yet in reading e-books you want exactly the opposite: you want to be able to adjust the layout to the screen and the font size to your preference. The point of an e-reader is not to mimic what you would print on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper, but that's what PDF does and does well. More particularly, the PDF format doesn't seem to differentiate between line breaks from wrapped text and line breaks due to new paragraphs. It also doesn't differentiate between the main text and headers, footers, sidebars, etc. That's fine for what it does—namely, make a standard printable document. It's not good for an e-reader. That's why reading PDFs on the e-reader is a sub-optimal experience—and why converting them to an e-reader-friendly format often creates something totally unreadable. Unless some substantial changes are made to the PDF format, that's not the right format for e-readers. I'm doubtful that HTML is the solution either: it has its own strengths and weaknesses that wouldn't suit an e-reader. As for the claim that Amazon is harming its business by DRM, I can't see that. In an interview I recently blogged, Jeff Bezos said that half of all their book sales are Kindle versions. (I'm sure they could do better if the hardware-and-interface on the Kindle were better, but I don't think that most people care about the DRM. Heck, most people don't even know what DRM is!) I do think that Amazon will be the winner in the e-book market, partly because they're such a huge bookseller and partly because they've already captured a significant chunk of the e-book market share. (That doesn't mean that the Kindle will survive, however.) Personally, I have no problem with DRM per se. I don't mind being locked in with Amazon. I like Amazon; I buy 95% of my books from them already. What I dislike about the Kindle is the focus on wireless rather than USB transfers, the inability to view and annotate books on my computer, the location ranges rather than definitive locations, the crappy keyboard and interface, etc. In other words, I just wish Amazon could make an Apple-quality hardware/interface. But for that, I'll wait for Apple.

Comment by Ari: I agree that pdf is, for most things, not ideal for e-readers. But what's wrong with HTML? In fact, Amazon asks publishers to submit books in HTML, which Amazon then converts to a DRM format. So Amazon e-books are essentially HTML documents already. If an HTML document cannot accommodate everything an e-reader needs, I am not aware of it.

Comment by Clay: Problem with DRM: It's all well and good to say.. "I'm happy with Amazon," but if Amazon dies you suddenly don't have any ebooks anymore while having invested in them substantially. This is additionally true if they decide to discontinue their service and shut down their DRM servers. Also... one can be temporarily locked out of their ebooks if Amazon's servers go down(wouldn't mention this, but they happen to be down at this immediate moment so I couldn't quite help it.) It's short-sighted to expect in modern business environments that these businesses will last indefinitely. For all one knows they could buy in to Amazon's service for the next 3 years only to discover that Amazon has been financially mis-managed, gone bankrupt, and sold off piecemeal while their DRM servers are permanently shut down b/c there is no longer money to pay for their maintenance. This by itself should be sufficient reason to be wary of DRM.

Comment by Allen: I'm not sure why you're saying servers down would affect DRM on my Kindle. It would prevent me from getting new content but it does not prevent me from accessing what I already have. I only need software, which I already have, that can read them.

Comment by Ari: Allen's point is valid, but only to a certain point. What if Amazon disappears, and the software does not function on my new computer? What if my Kindle breaks and I can then only read the e-books on my desktop? People who bought Beta or HD DVD can still play those movies on their Beta or HD DVD players, but it sucks to lose the support network. But my major concern is not that Amazon will go away, but simply that Amazon may lose the formatting war. Even if I can still read all my Amazon e-books, if they won't work with my new system, they're pretty worthless to me. What I want is an integrated library that will access all my e-books. I don't want to deal with different libraries for different readers.

Comment by Clay: Sorry.. I was thinking of subscription-based models where you must continually renew your Digital Rights to use the materials. It would appear that this doesn't apply to ebooks in the same way, but Ari makes the point well that there are many circumstances short of the destruction of Amazon that would leave one having spent loads of cash for something which might no longer be practical. If I actually own the ebook outright I can transfer it to whatever device that I like without having to worry about any future technological advances that might leave me holding an inferior product only fit for use on an inferior device. One of the other problems with DRM is that it creates problems for honest users while doing nothing to stop those who are determined to steal. Honest users run into all sorts of problems such as being unable to reload books onto various devices (this has happened even though Amazon claims in ads that you can reload books indefinitely apparently there are secret holds on some books restricting how many times you get to do this). While the thieves kick up their feet and enjoy a good book, the honest get to spend hours on the phone with customer service with no idea whether they will receive a just resolution to their problems. There are, or have been in the past, related issues with other companies such as Apple wrt to older DRM-laden music, and now with movies, tv, etc... where if you moved the files to a new system too may times suddenly you lose the right to make use of the video (b/c you DO NOT own it).

Comment by samrolken: Your information about iTunes is a bit out of date. There's no unique encoding or DRM on the music iTunes sells. It's in AAC/MP4 format, which is basically a technologically updated version of the MP3 standard and can be easily played on a lot of hardware and software.

Comment by Ari: Thanks Sam; I import everything into iTunes, so I haven't checked into going the other way. But your point does strengthen my argument about ebooks. The music industry has agreed on standard formatting, and the consumer can purchase a song and use it at will (consistent with copyright). As I just pointed out on my blog—http://bit.ly/6MAoB5—Amazon licenses ebooks, which severely restricts how they may be used.

Interview with Face's Mark Megibow

December 16, 2009

Mark Megibow, the percussionist for (http://www.facevocalband.com/) Face—the all-vocal group (http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/face-featured-on-nbcs-sing-off/) featured this week on (http://www.nbc.com/sing-off/) NBC's Sing Off—made some time in his busy schedule for an exclusive interview. My questions are in bold.

Have you noticed any increased interest in your group since the December 14 show? For instance, are your web page views or iTunes sales up?

We have received an enormous response nationwide, not just since the show aired on the 14th, but actually while the show aired. According to the ratings, there were 6-7 million viewers during our segment. Apparently people liked what they saw because we immediately saw a surge in web hits and CD sales. We are getting as many web visits in a day as we used to get in a whole month.

Was the December 14 show live, or was it pre-recorded? (At what point did you guys know you'd been cut?)

The first three episodes were all pre-recorded, so we were actually cut from the show about a week before it aired. Knowing that this was going to be our one shot, we spent the week making sure people were going to watch the first episode so they didn't miss us. We were proud of our performance and wanted people to enjoy it, in spite of knowing the outcome.

Did the show restrict what songs you could sing, or was the decision totally up to you?

There were a lot of factors that went into song selection for the show. The network's ability to get proper licensing for the song was a very objective restriction, and there were many subjective ones as well. We were brought on the show to be the "rock band," so the producers wanted our first song to be pretty straight-ahead rock. Playing to a wide viewing audience, they also required that the song be "immediately recognizable to the general public." There were so many criteria on song selection, we didn't have a single song in our existing repertoire that matched them all, so we had to start from scratch and choose a song we'd never done prior. I would call the process a "collaborative effort," with the final decision resting in the hands of the producers. We chose the Bon Jovi song because we felt it would be one that would show off our full range of voices—it has soaring vocals, a signature bass line, and a fun, driving beat, so we thought it was the best pick of the options presented to us.

Similarly, the producers had complete control over our image, wardrobe, and even choreography. We had the right to our own opinions, but ultimately it was their show, so they got to make the call. The producers gave us the nickname of "mountain men" and decided that was going to be their theme for our wardrobe. People who have been to our shows know that this is not how we style ourselves, but that's what we were given for the TV show, so we decided to just do our best with what we were given.

Do you have any personal reflections you'd like to share regarding the show, its host and judges, and the other participants?

We had a blast with the other groups and staff while we were out there. All of the groups were made up of great people. We spent a lot of time together being shuttled around, as well as in group rehearsals for the opening number, so we got to know them all. We were tremendously impressed with the staff—both with everyone's professionalism, as well as friendliness. It was a first-class production from top to bottom.

Is there any chance that you'll collaborate with the other groups in the future, such as in a joint concert in the area?

We would love to see any of the groups again, and we told them all that as we were leaving. Obviously we have to wait for the TV show to come to a close before we can put anything together, but I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up on stage with some of these groups again in the future.

What impact do you think the show will have on all-vocal music? Where do you see the genre headed?

I'm glad the general public is getting a main-stream introduction to how far all-vocal music has come. I think the producers picked eight great groups that will represent the genre very, very well, and that it will attract more people both as performers as well as audience members. The human voice is the most versatile instrument in existence (or more accurately, the most versatile analog instrument). Most vocal groups are still learning that the music doesn't have to be limited to choral sounds. Face has been playing with those sounds for years, and I think even we're still just scratching the surface. Then there are vocal groups that are starting to push the envelope using technology to assist or enhance the human voice, which is opening up a whole new world of sounds and ideas. Purists prefer to hear the unadulterated human voice, but the technology movement has had an effect on all instruments, and it's only natural that the voice be explored in that realm as well.

It seems like most all-vocal groups concentrate on arranging and performing existing songs. Do you think all-vocal groups (perhaps including Face) will turn more to original compositions, or will the strength of the genre continue to be offering interesting interpretations of music first performed elsewhere?

Although the genre of a cappella has become extremely broad, its roots can be traced back to vocal jazz, doo-wop, and barbershop, all of which rely heavily on "the standards" or "classics." As a cappella has grown and expanded into the realm of contemporary and popular music, it's no surprise that most groups continue to cover existing material. In the a cappella world, this is the norm. Song-writing is a completely different skill and you will find far fewer people who are good at song-writing, versus just singing other peoples' work. There are a number of contemporary vocal groups in the country that are singing original material and are presenting themselves as true bands, trying to make it with their own music. Face has talked for years about introducing original material into our set, and we've begun that process. In contrast, we have also found that the audience loves hearing songs they immediately recognize and like, but with our unique instrumentation, so our future will always include a mix of both original material and well-known classics.

Thanks, Mark! Congratulations again, and I look forward to seeing Face's continued rise.

NCR Says Antitrust Not Right Approach for Video; Kiosks May Dent Netflix

December 21, 2009

As I wrote (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/dropping-redbox-over-antitrust/) last month, I've stopped doing business with Redbox, the DVD kiosk service, because that company initiated antitrust actions against film companies.

Last week I learned that (http://www.ncr.com/about_ncr/media_information/news_releases/2009/december/121009a.jsp) NCR has acquired DVDPlay and plans to convert those "kiosks to its BLOCKBUSTER Express brand." It turns out that, in my region, these kiosks are placed in many Safeway stores.

On December 17, I sent the following e-mail to NCR:

Dear Mr. Dudash,

I no longer do business with Red Box because that company initiated antitrust actions against others, and I regard such action as unjust and a violation of individual rights.

Before I decide whether to do business with NCR/ DVDPlay, I'd like to know whether your company has initiated any antitrust actions or intends to do so. I will be happy to publish your response, and to make my consumer decisions accordingly.

Sincerely,

Ari Armstrong

Today I received the following reply:

Hi Ari, we have not initiated any lawsuits against the movie studios at this time. We have said publicly that we do not believe that is the right approach, and we are instead working with the studios to find a solution that addresses their needs, our needs and—most importantly—the needs of our consumers.

However, as I'm sure you can understand, I cannot comment on what actions we may or may not take in the future. But, certainly, we have not filed any lawsuits to date and have said publicly that we do not agree with the approach of litigation.

Jeff

Jeff Dudash

Public Relations

NCR

That is certainly good enough for me. I have already rented two videos from DVDPlay to see how the system works, and now I plan to rent from the service regularly.

The DVDPlay kiosk worked very well. The problem is that the consumer cannot view DVD availability by kiosk online, nor can the consumer reserve a rental online. Redbox allows both of these things, which makes that service quite a lot more useful. Hopefully, once the conversion to Blockbuster is complete, the service will upgrade its online capabilities. (I asked Dudash about this and will update this post if he answers.)

After I dropped Redbox, I upgraded my Netflix account from one-at-a-time DVD rentals to three-at-a-time. Now that I've found DVDPlay, I've reduced my Netflix account to a the single disc plan.

I figured that, while I was at it, I'd ask Netflix about its business plans. It seems to me that Netflix could offer the best of both worlds by renting DVDs through the mail and charging an additional per-rental fee for online new releases.

Right now Netflix rents DVDs for a monthly fee and offers online content at no additional charge. I've found some outstanding online offerings this way, such as Jim Henson's The Storyteller. But Netflix offers none of the hot new releases online.

Obviously Netflix also rents new releases by mail. The problem is that they tend to be delayed. I dropped the new Terminator film and Hangover from my Netflix list and rented them from DVDPlay. Currently Inglourious Basterds is listed on my Netflix queue as a "very long wait," as is Four Christmases. Public Enemies and Julie & Julia are listed as "long waits." My plan is to remove all these films from my Netflix queue and rent them at DVDPlay (if available).

Meanwhile, Amazon and iTunes rent new-release movies online for $3.99. So I can pay a dollar at DVDPlay, or I can pay four times as much to view the same content through my cable modem. For me, this is no contest. The kiosk is within easy walking distance, and I like to walk around, anyway. While I have rented many movies from kiosks, I have paid not one red cent for online video rentals (not counting the online content included with my Netflix membership).

Is Netflix planning to compete with the kiosks and with the online rental sites for new-release business? No.

I called up Steve Swasey, Netflix's Vice President of Corporate Communications. He graciously took my call. He said that Netflix is and intends to remain a subscription-based company. He pointed out that Netflix has been growing despite the competition.

Moreover, Swasey said that Netflix users tend to be more interested in the company's deep catalog and excellent customer service. (I readily granted that these are strong points for the company.) Swasey sensibly said that "a great release from 1974 is a great movie," whereas a new release may not be so great. With Netflix, he said, customers can find older movies "tailored to you." As examples, he noted that the films Crash and Hotel Rwanda have been Netflix favorites. (I hated the first film and appreciated the second.)

Swasey said that "new releases just aren't that important to most Netflix users," who instead enjoy the large catalog, tailored recommendations, and "extreme simplicity" of the monthly subscription.

As much as I enjoyed talking with Swasey and appreciate his perspective, I just don't buy his rationale. I think it would be in Netflix's interests to offer pay-per-view online rentals for new releases.

I would gladly pay Netflix an extra couple bucks to watch a new release online, rather than wait for weeks for the DVD or deal with a kiosk. This would be an added service, so only customers who wanted it would have to worry about it. Everyone else could maintain the "extreme simplicity" of the monthly subscription. (I don't regard online rentals as terribly complicated or confusing.)

I think it's obvious to everybody that the DVD is a dated medium. Its days are numbered. So, within a few years (I don't care to guess precisely how many), both DVD kiosks and the Netflix mail service will be aborted. Interestingly, NCR plans to enable consumers "to download movies from the kiosks to portable memory cards," but I don't see how this will ultimately compete with online rentals.

DVDs must be produced and physically distributed, whether by store, mail, or kiosk. They break. They cost money on top of the digital content. Meanwhile, as streaming costs go down, the marginal production cost of an online rental will drop closer and closer to zero.

Obviously Netflix is aware of this, as the company has already started offering online content. The problem is that Netflix wants to limit the number of any particular disc it buys, which is why new releases end up with "very long waits." Yet Netflix can't offer unlimited new releases online for $8.99 per month, which is the minimum plan for unlimited online viewing.

As I suggested to Swasey, I think the reason a lot of Netflix users aren't as interested in new releases from Netflix is simply that it's difficult to get them there, and, like me, they use some other service for new releases.

At some point Netflix is going to have to figure out how to offer new releases via online rentals, if the company wishes to continue to exist. Here's my ideal plan: I pay $8.99 per month for unlimited online viewing of older content, plus $1.99 per viewing of a hot new release. (New releases could drop into the general pool after a certain number of weeks.) Under such a scheme, I would give Netflix 100 percent of my video rental business.

The problem for Netflix is getting from here to there. The company is stuck in a "Netflix hole" in which new releases are largely inaccessible to members.

How to solve this problem? Here is my suggestion. Netflix can keep its current plan for whoever wants to keep using it. Then Netflix can create an entirely new, online-only plan, as described above (monthly fee plus a modest pay-per-view fee on new releases).

Update: Here's another obvious approach: Netflix could offer a standard online video program for, say, $9 per month plus pay-per-view on new releases, and a premium program that includes unlimited viewing of new releases for, say, $20 per month. That way, people who care nothing about new releases, or who only want to watch them occasionally, can sign up for the less-expensive account, while others can pay more for full access.

That, Mr. Swasey, is what I call "extreme simplicity"—and a business model that would vault Netflix to the top of the competition.

Until then, I will be happy to do new-release business with NCR, which has, at least for now, sworn off unjust antitrust actions.

Going Digital

December 22, 2009

What is extraordinary about my lifetime is that I will have witnessed the birth of the home computer industry and (if things go well) the complete conversion of all relevant media forms to digital formats separate from any particular physical "carrier" medium.

In recent days I have written about the still-problematic (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/how-stupid-drm-is-killing-e-books/) e-book industry as well as the move toward (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/ncr-says-antitrust-not-right-approach-for-video-kiosks-may-dent-netflix/) online video content. Fittingly, today I found an (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/12/wsj-apples-plan-to-kill-pay-tv-with-itunes-and-the-tablet-dated/) article by Matt Buchanan covering both these stories in the context of Apple's business innovations. Before getting to that story, though, I thought this is a good time to step back and gaze at the landscape.

The basic art forms are these: music, painting, sculpture, literature, dance, theater, film, and architecture. There are certain hybrids, like opera (musical theater) and illustrated fiction.

Art presented as a structure (sculpture, architecture) may be photographed and filmed, and only in these derivative forms digitized. (One may view a (http://www.sacredsites.com/europe/greece/parthenon.html) photograph of the Parthenon, but obviously viewing the photo is not at all the same experience as visiting the place.) Performance art may be recorded in audio or on film, and the recorded presentations may be digitized. Going to hear a symphony is a different experience than listening to a recording of a symphony, though the audio quality might be very similar.

(http://www.artrenewal.org/) Paintings obviously may be digitized, and the similarity of the digitized piece to the original, while generally fairly close, varies significantly by art work. The (http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artwork.php?artworkid=12100) School of Athens is fantastic on a modern computer screen, but it simply does not compare with the real thing, whereas the (http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/artwork.php?artworkid=1971) Mona Lisa is nearly as impressive digitally (I write as I duck the stones).

Literature is readily digitized, for the same reasons that literature can be translated and read aloud. Literature is the most purely conceptual form of art, and its mode is language, and language is inherently separable from any particular medium (which is not to discount the qualities of a musty old book).

Film inherently converts a performance to a two-dimensional image, so the digitization process is perfectly natural. Some modern "films" may begin with hand drawings but develop primarily digital animation.

For our purposes, the upshot is that film, music, and literature are the most-easily digitized art forms, with paintings following behind. Regardless of how we categorize photography in terms of art, obviously it has joined film in making the natural jump to digital formats. (General retail outlets don't even sell film cameras any more.)

The basic modes of mass communication are text, photographs, speaking, and video (I'll say rather than film, which is now mostly outdated).

The above facts indicate that the modes of digitizing the fine arts match up pretty will with the modes of digitizing mass communication. Whether we are talking about fine arts or mass communication, in the digital world we are basically talking about text, still images, audio, and video. Any digital content basically combines those four sorts of presentation. Basically, if you can see it or hear it, where the seeing or hearing is the point of the thing, it can be digitized. (Whether the sense of touch can be effectively digitized remains to be seen, but a world where more than a few would want such a thing would be a very different world from our own.)

Music has essentially gone digital now. My first album was a record, as in a disc of plastic etched to stimulate a needle. (Genesis, baby, as in the band.) Interestingly, I've never actually looked up the term (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analog) "analog" until just now: "of or pertaining to a mechanism that represents data by measurement of a continuous physical variable, as voltage or pressure." Anyway, within my lifetime music has gone from entirely analog to almost entirely digital.

Moreover, music has largely made the break from a particular, dedicated medium. While the music CD remains popular, increasingly people buy music online and save it to a hard drive or flash drive.

Video similarly has largely gone digital. Due to its increased file size it remains more tied to the DVD, though this is rapidly changing. My step-dad had one of those VHS video recorders you had to rest on your shoulder to operate. I own a digital video camera that records directly to flash memory. YouTube allows pretty much anybody to upload any video that's under ten minutes, while a variety of services display movies and "television" shows online.

Obviously photography has gone digital. While 35 millimeter film was the standard consumer-grade film in my childhood, today I can't name anybody I know who owns a film camera.

Strangely, text, while far more easily digitized than audio, photos, or video, remains largely bound to ink and pulp. They still print newspapers and books in large quantities. The stickiness in converting text to digital formats is funny given that the analog formats are created from digital source files. Word processors were among the first computer applications.

My mother used a real typewriter in college. I mean, you hit the key, and it caused a metal arm to strike the paper through an inked ribbon. No electricity! When I was in high school, I learned how to type on an electric typewriter; the metal arms were replaced by a rotating ball, but the mark was still made by a metal form striking the paper. Now I don't know anybody who uses anything other than a computer to generate polished text. (Well, I've met two people who still write by hand, a novelist and a philosopher, but they lie well outside the norm. Of course somebody then transforms their scribbles to digital text.)

So why is it that practically everyone generates text digitally but then many still convert it to ink on pulp? There are two main reasons, one involving technology and the other business organization. The technological problem is that reading text on computer screens tends to create eye strain (as I am already experiencing in the writing of this post). It's a lot easier to sit down for several hours and read an ink-on-paper book than it is to read a digital display of the same text. But the new eye-friendly e-readers seem to be on the road to solving this problem.

The second problem is that nobody has yet figured out a great way to (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/ncr-says-antitrust-not-right-approach-for-video-kiosks-may-dent-netflix/) sell e-books or (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/dear-dean-singleton-please-charge-me/) profitably publish news online. I think it extremely likely that some combination of business leaders will solve all of these problems within the next few years. I think that, within the next decade or so, printed newspapers will be mostly gone and that the paper-on-ink book industry will look a lot like today's record industry.

Whether we look at video, audio, still images, or text, the trend is the same: people will no longer buy a physical good, they will buy a digital file online and store it on some sort of data drive.

Today I went to Target and spent just over $15 to purchase a four gigabyte "thumb" drive. I loaded it with videos, photos, audio files, database files, and text files, then dropped the device into my pocket. We no longer need dedicated physical objects to store these things. We buy them via an energy stream, then we store them on a universal storage device and enjoy them via some software program running on a gizmo.

I know that techies have already rolled their eyes and closed this page in annoyance, but I stand in awe of the digital revolution that has occurred in just a few years. These simple, obvious, and mundane facts all around us mark a turning point for our species.

As for Buchanan, he (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/12/wsj-apples-plan-to-kill-pay-tv-with-itunes-and-the-tablet-dated/) reports that Apple appears to be gearing up to expand its online video market and its small-sized computer market. As Philip Elmer-DeWitt (http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/12/09/apple-tablet-set-for-spring-launch/) indicates for Money, Apple's "Tablet" and associated deals may revolutionize the e-book industry.

Very soon digital content via the internet will be the norm, and records, tapes, CDs, DVDs, newsprint, and pulp books will become quaint (and even eccentric) throwbacks to an earlier age.

Update: I was just poking around at the (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=49&pid=ELEC-0079) Cato Institute's web page, and I noticed that the outfit is selling Tom Palmer's new book as an e-book for $14. This is available through Kindle for $9.99. However, I called Cato and was assured their digital books are straight pdfs, and to me that is well worth the extra four bucks.)

Ralph Carr Shows Politicians Can Stand for Liberty

December 22, 2009

The following article originally was (http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091221/OPINION/912209995/1021&parentprofile=1062) published December 21 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Ralph Carr shows politicians can stand for liberty

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

If you still have last-minute Christmas shopping to do, we have a suggestion. Adam Schrager, the thoughtful 9News reporter, wrote a book called The Principled Politician: Governor Ralph Carr and the Fight Against Japanese American Internment. This delightful account of important Colorado history came out in paperback earlier this month.

Carr served as governor from 1939 to 1943, an era spanning parts of two of the nation's greatest challenges: the Great Depression and World War II. Carr responded to both these crises by defending liberty and individual rights.

As Carr entered office, Colorado government faced a $1.8 million deficit. Unlike many of today's politicians, whose answer to deficits is to raise taxes and "fees" or increase government spending, Carr called for fiscal responsibility.

Schrager writes that Carr "announced plans to abolish many of the state bureaus and boards established by the last administration." He also "proposed shifting the net income tax benefiting schools into the state's general fund." During a speech he "told the crowd that anyone who joined the civil service to have an easy job financed by taxpayers... could expect to be fired."

We wish we could hear Carr's common-sense wisdom reflected in today's political debates. (All quotations are from Schrager's book.) "The way to save money is to stop spending it." "Spending and lending is unsound and... thrift and the full payment of debts... is simple and common honesty."

While seconding the nomination of Wendell Willkie, who lost the presidential contest of 1940, Carr said, "If we are ever to save this country, we must first save business. Every one of you is in business—big business and little business, farmers, stockmen, laboring men, industrialists."

Carr turned down a chance of running with Willkie (a wise move in retrospect) to continue his work in Colorado. Carr said, "What have we done to justify your returning us to office? We have taken the income of the state of Colorado. We have lived within it. We added not a dime of new taxes. We cut the levy for state purposes... and we balanced your blooming budget."

Carr opposed Roosevelt's expansive political controls: "The New Deal has usurped the powers of the state [and] undermined personal liberty."

Carr added, "It is not disloyal to oppose and to question the policy of one who has not yet proved himself omnipotent and to require that he too be limited and circumscribed by those same ideals and standards governing others. We insist that the president recognize and follow the Constitution which created him."

Carr summarized his basic political philosophy with an eloquence rare in politics: "The individual is supreme and government is established only to protect and foster his rights." He later added, "Every time the individual submits to a central government for a solution of another problem of business or life, there is a consequent surrender of individuality, of privilege, of right."

Carr argued that the term "liberal" had been stolen by the left. He said, "The true liberals are those who consistently follow the proposition that liberty means freedom to exercise individual rights unaffected by external restraint or compulsion... The underlying theory of the Constitution is found in the proposition that every man may use the talents which God has given him, may reach any goal toward which he sets his eyes, and may enjoy the fruits of his ambition, his study and his toil, provided only that he does not use his powers to injure his fellows."

The fate of the nation changed on December 7, 1941, when Japanese bombers attacked the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor. Carr rose to the challenge, setting up "an emergency meeting of the Colorado Council of Defense for the next morning," Schrager writes.

While most Coloradans responded to the crisis admirably, some turned to paranoia and racist threats. Some called Japanese Americans "vipers" and "yellow rats." Various politicians and media personalities wanted to put them into concentration camps. The Denver Post wrote, "To hell with the Japs!" Nels Smith, governor of Wyoming, said "there would be Japs hanging from every pine tree" if sent to that state.

Carr rejected racism. He said, "We have among us many of a new generation of Japanese people born in the United States—sincere, earnest, and loyal." He offered a "hand of friendship" to immigrants. He urged protection of the Bill of Rights and the "security, freedom, and opportunity" it offers.

In a public address, Carr granted the existence of enemy "fifth columnists" and assented to federal relocation policies. Yet he also spoke for "loyal German, Italian, and Japanese citizens who must not suffer for the activities and animosities of others." He warned against "the danger of inflammatory statements and threats against these unwelcome guests" forcibly sent to Colorado.

Though we may not approve every detail of Carr's career, he has richly earned his place in history as a man who defended liberty. We thank Schrager for telling his inspiring story.

E-Books: Amazon Versus Barnes and Noble

December 23, 2009

I've been (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/how-stupid-drm-is-killing-e-books/) complaining quite a lot about Amazon's e-book service. My basic complaint is that, because of Amazon's proprietary software, Amazon e-books will only play on devices supported by Amazon's reader software. Presently that excludes my Mac, which means that the only way I could buy Amazon e-books was to also buy Amazon's Kindle (or an iPhone or Touch, which runs the software).

I don't want to buy a Kindle because it does way more than what I want it to do, and as a result it is quite overpriced for my budget and needs.

Thankfully, I have friends who tend to be early adopters of new technology. One of these friends (http://www.dianahsieh.com/) (Diana Hsieh) lent me her Kindle for a few days so that I could check it out. This was quite helpful, because, as Amazon has no physical store front, it is otherwise impossible to pick up and play around with the Kindle before buying it.

I also purchased Karen Armstrong's The Case for God from Barnes and Noble (BN), because it will read on my computer (with the BN reader) and I wanted to try it out. I'm contemplating buying several more books through BN but I worry that they won't read on the e-reader I may ultimately buy and that I won't be able to integrate my purchases from different suppliers. (The word is that Apple is also getting into the e-book game, which could change the industry dramatically.)

BN's Nook is not yet available for purchase, so I cannot directly compare the two services. I'm reading the God book on my Mac screen and comparing that with text on the Kindle. But that's what I have to work with.

I'll begin with the BN e-book. It was easy to buy (once I set up my account), and the BN e-reading software installed and functioned flawlessly. The text looks fabulous on my great Mac screen, and it is easy to increase the font size and resize the window for a narrower column of text.

There is a huge disadvantage with the BN e-book and a minor one. The huge disadvantage is that the e-book will only read with the BN e-reader software, which bugs the living hell out of me. What is the point of having universal formats like pdf and HTML if e-book sellers refuse to use those formats? By contrast, an mp3 song you buy from any vendor will play on any device on the standard software. You don't buy mp3s from Amazon that play only on the Amazon music reader. (Apple-formatted songs will only play on iTunes, but, as I've noted, Apple can get away with this because the company is so great at making players.)

Incidentally, today I spent $63.10 at the (http://www.catostore.org/) Cato Institute's store to purchase seven e-books. These were straight pdf downloads, so I don't have to worry about the compatibility issues of DRM. I do think that publishers should sell both pdf and HTML formats so that users can select the format best adapted to the reading device.

The minor disadvantage is that the BN e-book has no standardized page numbers. Instead, the pagination adjusts to the window and text. The problem is that BN e-books are useless for citation purposes, unless we've gotten to the point where nobody cares about page references because books are so easily searchable. If I do a review of the book, I'll look up the page numbers, ironically, with Amazon's "look inside" feature. Perhaps that should give Amazon the idea that its business model in this area sucks.

There are some advantages to reading an e-book on a computer screen that I did not anticipate. For note-taking, I can easily open a text window next door. The BN e-book allows the reader to cut-and-paste short passages, which is awesome. I also love the way the endnotes work. Click on the endnote to move to that note at the end of the document; click the number again to go back to that point in the text. That beats the hell out of flipping back and forth in a paper copy.

What about the Kindle? Previously I had indicated that I didn't much like the Kindle's design, whereas the Sony e-reader looked more appealing. I have since visited a Sony e-reader in a Target store, and I now think it completely sucks. What I didn't notice before is that the Sony device features ten menu buttons on the right-hand side, which screams poor design. The Target model didn't even work right, which didn't fill me with confidence. It seemed a lot more like a toy than a serious reader.

The Kindle, by contrast, is an elegant machine. The screen looks marvelous, and, while I have not yet spent hours reading from it, I have no doubt that will prove no problem. The Kindle's controls are a lot more intuitive than I thought they would be. One key control is a miniature joystick, which works fabulously. (I'm used to operating a similar control on my Canon video camera.)

The Kindle, then, is great at what it does. The problem is that it does way too much for my needs, and therefore costs way too much for my budget. The Kindle is like a Hummer, when all I'm looking for is an economical and reliable little Honda. Because I don't want to buy a Kindle, and because Amazon e-books will not yet read on my Mac, I am simply not going to buy any Amazon e-books. (Again Amazon might consider the fact that its business model is completely stupid, though at least the company is working on more readers.)

The main thing that the Kindle has that I absolutely do not want in an e-reader (for the money) is wireless technology. What I want is a cheap little USB cable through which I can load e-books from my computer library onto my reader. The ability to buy books on the road is of practically no value to me.

I didn't realize you can browse the internet on a Kindle, which is cool, but again the coolness is not nearly worth the money. Of course I loaded up my own web page. The browser was tracking the loading progress—I kid you not—in kilobytes, with a "k." I finally got irritated by the wait and hit the stop button, at which point (at least part of) my web page displayed, and quite nicely. But, seriously, who wants to browse the internet s-l-o-w-l-y in black and white? If I want to browse the internet on the go, I'll buy an iPhone or Touch. I'd much rather carry two devices that do what they're supposed to do than one device that sucks at most of its functions.

Speaking of suckage, I tried the Kindle's audio reader software. Painful. If I were blind, I imagine I could get used to it. But it would be a real struggle. Think of the challenge of getting past Keanu's acting to enjoy the Matrix, then multiply that by a thousand.

The Kindle has a built-in speaker and audio-processing software, so it will play mp3s and audio books. That's cool, but I'd much rather buy a less-expensive e-reader plus a $59 iShuffle. Just sell me the reader. That's all I want it to do.

As an e-reader, the Kindle works great. If I could just buy the e-reader part of the Kindle at a lower price, I'm pretty sure I'd do it. The dictionary is very cool. You just push the joystick until the cursor is in front of the word of interest, and the definition pops up at the bottom.

It is possible to take notes and record them with a Kindle document. Again push the joystick until the cursor is where you want it, then start "typing" your note. The keyboard, as I anticipated, is horrible. I mean, if you were a sentient ferret or something, it would probably be the perfect size. Maybe it's okay for the "texting" generation. But I absolutely hate it. I'd much rather scribble down a few notes on a piece of paper. So, Kindle minus wireless minus the keyboard minus the high price is a device I'd love to buy.

At least the Kindle has standardized "locations" (rather than "pages"), but these don't match the paper version. They are also listed as ranges (such as "locations 14-19"), which is strange. Will publications allow Kindle-specific citations, or will Kindle buyers need to check the page references against the paper versions? I don't know why publishers don't simply insert a page counter into the text itself matching the hard-copy page counts. This is trivially easy to do, though it would be a minor distraction while reading the text. Granted, some older books already have many different paginations. But there's no reason for new books not to feature the same page references for the hardback, softcover, and e-book versions.

The Kindle will run pdf files fine. You can even upload them via USB. But to run files like Word and HTML, a user must send the file to a Kindle-specific e-mail, then Amazon "will convert the document to Kindle format." So, in other words, to get an HTML file from my computer to my Kindle sitting right next to it, I need to send the HTML file half-way around the world to wherever Amazon keeps its computers, where Amazon will convert this already-standard-format file to the completely-non-standard Amazon format, then send the file back to my Kindle wirelessly. Did I mention that Amazon's business model for the Kindle is completely ridiculous? I mean, God forbid that I'm able to send an HTML file via a USB cable and read it with my $259 e-reader. I mean, Amazon can install software that will (sort of) read the text out loud, but it can't figure out how to let me read HTML files directly?

I only had one minor problem while using the Kindle: at one point, when I was trying to jump to a linked table-of-contents entry, the Kindle thought I was trying to highlight some vast portion of the document. But I soon figured out how to cancel out of that mode, and with a little jiggling got the joystick to do what I wanted it to do. (Much of this tinkering I was doing while reading Amazon's tutorial, which is a pretty good document.)

If my income were more upper-middle-class than lower-middle-class, I'd gladly buy the Kindle, despite the risk of betting on an e-book reader that turns out to be the equivalent of Beta or HD DVD. But, given that the Kindle does way too much and therefore costs a lot, I'll wait to buy a reader until the market has settled down a bit, the formatting issues have been resolved, and I can buy a nice low-end reader for $150 or less. At this point I will either wait to buy e-books or buy BN e-books that at least will read on my Mac.

It was a fun date, but the Kindle is not yet marriage material.

December 23 Update: I just had a thought: why doesn't Amazon allow e-book purchasers to view the books in a web browser with password protection? Then Amazon wouldn't even need to release additional readers. Any device with a browser would suffice. Also, I sincerely hope that Apple makes an economy-model reader, as I imagine the Tablet will be priced well outside my budget.

Comment by Paul Hsieh: For many online articles that I want to read on the Kindle, I set up the printable version then "print" using the PDF option on the print window. This creates a PDF version which I then transfer onto my Kindle DX. I read a lot of online articles that way. Plus it avoids the conversion service.

Comment by Bill Brown: Instapaper has some sort of Kindle download capability. I don't have a Kindle so I never dug into it. I'd recommend Instapaper in general; I use it on my iPhone all the time. I think that Apple's suspected tablet will solve a lot of the eBook DRM issues you've mentioned, albeit indirectly. I suspect that it will run iPhone apps in some fashion (they'd be exceedingly foolish to not make 100k apps available immediately at launch). Thus, it will support Kindle and Nook formats (among many others like ePub, PDF, and Audible). If it doesn't run iPhone apps without modification, then it'll likely be akin to the iPhone 3.0 transition where developers just had to make some minor adjustments to support the new OS. Amazon and B&N will update their apps because they're more interested in selling books than selling the hardware.

Maes Talks Taxes, Abortion, and Eminent Domain

December 23, 2009

I have been dismissive of Dan Maes, who is challenging presumptive front-runner Scott McInnis for the Republican nomination for governor. (See my (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/the-mcinnis-juggernaut/) first, (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/dan-maes-describes-top-five-issues/http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/11/dan-maes-describes-top-five-issues/) second, and (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/tea-partiers-get-partisan/) third set of comments.) But Maes shows up and answers questions, and that counts for a lot. His tenacity earns him at least a second glance—especially given that McInnis is the ideal candidate of few.

I talked with Maes at the December 21 Liberty On the Rocks holiday party (er, "Christmas party!") hosted by the Independence Institute. We talked about a number of issues, but I assured him the conversation was off the record. He also complained that I had not given enough consideration to his candidacy. So I figured I'd invite him to further articulate some of things we talked about, on the record. I sent him five questions, which he generously answered. My questions are in bold.

I appreciate you giving me your time at the II event to discuss your campaign.

I would like to again give you the opportunity to further articulate your views, on the record. I have a number of questions arising from our conversation. I will be happy to publish your replies, unaltered, on my web page.

1. As governor, what would be your role in dealing with the military's desire to expand Pinon Canyon operations? [See the write-up about (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/scott-mcinnis-on-eminent-domain/) McInnis's statements on eminent domain for background.]

I would like to act as a mediator and seek out a mutually beneficial solution if possible. I do not see issues like this as zero sum. I only have the ranchers' input thus far and they have presented a very strong case for preservation based on many valuable criteria not limited to private property rights, less federalization of state land, and cultural history. I await the Army's position in detail beyond a GAO report that has unaddressed exemptions in it.

2. Generally, when do you believe eminent domain is appropriate, if ever?

It is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit.

3. Please explain what specific economic policies you would adopt. Would you seek to cut specific taxes?

Yes, personal income tax and business property tax. Possibly explore a Fairtax (consumption tax).

Cut specific state programs?

Yes, TBD.

Roll back specific economic controls?

Clarify please.

[I was under the impression that Maes wanted to cut certain regulations on business, and I was trying to figure out which regulations he might want to repeal or modify. I will be happy to post Maes's additional comments on the matter if he cares to send them.] Many politicians, including W. Bush and Obama, promised to cut taxes, so I'm looking for some specific proposals.

I see our energy industry and the accompanying tax revenues as an enormous potential for our state just like our energy producing neighbors. With aggressive and responsible energy policies we could increase these revenues dramatically. Simultaneously, I have articulated my position on downsizing government FTE [full-time employees] by up to 4000.

I will defend Tabor while seeking a better balance with the effects of Amendment 23. I am a strong advocate for public schools as I have two children attending them, however; we must seek more fiscally responsible reform.

Cutting taxes is part of my plan but only after we have struck an appropriate sizing of state government and started a statewide recovery.

4. As you know, the Colorado legislature directs corporate welfare to a variety of industries, including tourism and energy. What are your views of corporate welfare?

I would like to examine the specifics in each case. Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy.

5. The "personhood" measure slated for the 2010 ballot states, "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." Please explain your views on this measure.

I support it with the understanding that the life of the child is equal to that of the mother and shall never be considered more important than that of the mother.

I appreciate your pledge to answer the survey coming soon from my dad and me. That will probably come out the first days of January.

In closing, understand that we have 3 months until caucuses, 5.5 months until state assembly, and 11 months until the general election. It is still a tad early to have all the answers but I hope I have given you something to start with. Contrary to my opponent, I do have a copy of the current state budget and will continue to examine it, get consultation on it, and come

ready to provide even more specifics in the near future. Thank you.

I will indeed be interested to see whether McInnis is as forthcoming in his answers to the upcoming survey. (I also hope the survey prompts even more specific and revealing answers from Maes on a variety of issues.) I believe the voters of Colorado deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.

By the way, a (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/12/colorado-gubernatorial-candidates-scott-mcinnis-and-dan-maes-in-their-own-words/) People's Press Collective article discusses some of the recent comments of the candidates, including McInnis's comments about the CSU gun ban.

Talking both with Maes and with Clive Tidwell, the underdog in the U.S. Senate race, I picked up a "throw the bums out" vibe, which is to be expected from candidates with no political experience running against seasoned former politicians. However, I have no interest in replacing one bum with another, potentially worse one. While experience and biography do matter in these political races, I hope ultimately they are about fundamental ideas and their application to policy. So I will continue to try to get candidates to articulate their ideas and policies as fully as possible. I hope the voters—and other political writers—join me in this.

Jimmy Lakey Runs for 7th Congressional

December 24, 2009

I attended the Red Rocks Liberty On the Rocks December 7 meeting, where Adam Schrager discussed his (http://ariarmstrong.com/2009/12/ralph-carr-shows-politicians-can-stand-for-liberty/) inspiring book about Ralph Carr. Jimmy Lakey, a candidate for Colorado's 7th Congressional district, also attended that meeting, so I pulled out my audio recorder and asked him some questions.

In business Lakey promotes Christian music. Lakey adopted a son from Africa and continues to participate in charity work there. His biographical notes take up Part I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALIdeOdc6L8

For Part II, Lakey said he is running to protect the future of his son as a new American citizen. He said he is not and does not want to be a career politician. He questioned the decision of Ryan Frazier—another Republican in the race—to extend same-sex benefits in Aurora in a time of fiscal downturn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_ZxmTNV5U

For Part III, Lakey contrasted his views with those of incumbent Ed Perlmutter. While Lakey stressed his fiscal conservatism, Lakey also discussed his "faith-based beliefs" and endorsed the "personhood" measure slated for the 2010 ballot (defining a fertilized egg as a person).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcHq3XnTNuQ

Ebooks.com Offers Online Book Viewing

December 28, 2009

I've been (http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/12/e-books-amazon-versus-barnes-and-noble.html) looking into the ebook industry, and generally I don't like what I see at present. The essential problem is that the major ebook sellers, notably Amazon and Barnes and Noble, sell ebooks that read only with proprietary readers. This raises two problems. First, I want to be able to integrate all my ebooks into a single library, much as I can integrate all my music into iTunes now (made possible with the standardized mp3 format). Second, I don't want to invest money in a platform that's going to end up failing in the market place. I don't want a library's worth of the ebook equivalent of Beta or HD DVD.

At the same time, I don't want to buy ink-and-paper books anymore, because my shelf space is limited and I want the flexibility and portability that comes with ebooks. So, for right now, my solution is to simply stop buying books, except for used copies that save a bit of money, books unavailable in digital format, and books that I absolutely want to read right away. The book industry is a mess. When publishers and retailers decide to straighten it out, I will resume doing business with them.

Previously I've made a couple of interrelated suggestions: HTML seems like the natural standard for ebook publishing, and ebook sellers should make the ebooks readable online, via a standard web browser. Now I've found a bit more information about this.

As (http://www.jedisaber.com/eBooks/tutorial.asp) Jedi Saber points out,"The .epub is a standard for eBooks created by the International Digital Publishing Forum. It consists of basic XHTML for the book content, XML for descriptions, and a re-named zip file to hold it all in. Anyone can make these eBooks, and since they're essentially just XHTML, anyone can read them." (Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/products/digitaleditions/faq/) says basically the same thing.)

Indeed, Jedi Saber proceeds to explain how to generate the epub format. While Jedi complains about the high cost of Adobe's InDesign, which apparently can generate the epub format, I am fortunate to be married to a graphic designer, so this may well be a viable option for me. (I am working on an upgraded ebook version of (http://www.valuesofharrypotter.com/) Values of Harry Potter; an earlier version had been straight HTML.)

I noticed another (http://www.ebookscorp.com/consumers.html) tidbit from Ebooks.com: some of the company's ebooks "can also read books online, from any computer, anywhere, without downloading or installing anything." Now THAT is sweet.

For instance, Ebooks.com (http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=460182) offers the Twilight books "online in eb20.)" An explanatory note explains:

eBooks.com has just released eb20, a web-based ebook reader application. This means that, in addition to downloading an ebook to your computer or device, you can now read the book online from any computer with a supported web browser that's connected to the internet. eb20 requires no software installation and enables you to just start reading a work, seconds after buying it.

In the coming months you'll see more and more of our books available through this simple online reading interface. As books are converted to eb20 format, you'll see a little Read Online link next to the book in your eBooks.com account. Just click on that link and start reading. When buying a book, if you see Available to read online in eb20, it means that, once you've paid for it, you'll be able to download the ebook and read it online anywhere, anytime.

There's just one teensie problem with Ebooks.com (aside from its limited selection): many of its ebooks are insanely expensive. Let's take the example of Karen Armstrong's The Case for God, which I recently downloaded as a trial run from Barnes and Noble for $9.99. The Amazon Kindle price is also $9.99. The Amazon hardcover price is $18.45. Random House will (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307272928) sell you the ebook directly for $27.95, the price for which Ebooks.com also (http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=414623) sells the book.

Memo to publishers: if you're going to whine about Amazon's ebook selling prices, you might think about not trying to jack customers with your own ebook prices. Publishers try to sell overpriced goods that are a hassle to use and then wonder why their industry is flailing.

Perhaps one of these years book publishers will catch up to the 21st Century.

Amazon Licenses Non-Transferable Ebooks

December 29, 2009

I wanted to find the answer to a very simple question: if I spend, say, $10,000 on an ebook library over a span of years, can I will that library to another party upon my death, as I can will my collection of printed books? For Amazon, the answer is no.

Here's what the (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200144530) Amazon Kindle: License Agreement and Terms of Use has to say:

Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

Restrictions. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.

In other words, Amazon does not sell ebooks. It licenses them. That means if you spend $10,000 on a library of printed books, that collection becomes an asset that can be resold or willed. If you spend $10,000 on a Kindle library, the value of that expenditure is utterly destroyed upon your death, and the library cannot be transferred to any other party.

And that completely sucks.

Comment by Kendall J: Ari, I'd like to challenge this thinking on a couple of different points, and maybe convince you that instead of "sucking" that this sitaution is actually quite reasonable. To characterize books as something one leaves to their kids is an anachronistic way of thinking about ebooks. Just as thinking of them as something with pages and printing is. This can be seen for a couple of different reasons. a. ebooks cost less so thinking about it in terms of $10,000 worth of books in one case, vs the same amount is really not correct. b. We leave things to our kids/benefactors (and historically things in general are willed) for a couple of different reasons. In the past, things that were durable, valuable and hard to replace were passed from generation to generation. When value disappears then sentimentalism is really the other reason things persist from generation to generation. Books are somewhat durable, and in the past they were valuable. The value of a library in 20 years today is pennies on the dollar (except for maybe hard to replace volumes) Today, the best that can be said is that books might be hard to replace and only in that capacity (and in sentimentality) do they hold value. However, even that paradigm is changing. With the marginal cost of storage of an ebook dropping, and the minimum volume required to justify its production also dropping, it is quite conceviable that the phrase "to go out of print" will be as anachronistic as the desire to "will a library." So maybe the way to think about this is with the following example. Option A: buy $10,000 worth of print books over your lifetime, and will them to someone at your death. Option B: buy the same books as ebooks but for nominally less, let's say $6,000 (Terribly conservative, since I'm using the discount on today's eversion of Atlas at Amazon vs. a new print version—one could reasonably expect that over a lifetime that difference to grow significantly). Take the rest of the remaining money and invest it in a "book fund" which I'll will to someone at my death instead. I'm quite confident that given the dropping cost of production and storage, and therefore the ubiquitousness of ebooks, that the sum you'd bequeath would allow the beneficiary to duplicate your final library easily a hundred times over. As for the sentimentality your beneficiary might hold. Sentimentality is an emotional attachment that is real, but it is an attachment to an arbitrary thing. That is, that in different cultures and times, sentimentality shifts. THere is nothing inherent in a book per se that makes it of sentimental value that some other thing can't also hold. So in your will include a handwritten note to your kids (or whoever), a list of "1000 books that will change your life, because they changed mine" along with the book fund, and I will bet they'll keep that list forever. And this sucks... why? Given this situation it's no wonder that Amazon doesn't see a need to provide a perpetual, assignable license. All the best,
Kendall -

Comment by Ari: Well, I didn't say non-transferability is a deal killer, just that it is a significant negative. Are the e-books even transferable to spouses? I saw no allowance in Amazon's rules for this. Does that mean if I die my wife loses our entire collection of e-books purchased under my name? I think that books will go digital much faster and much more completely than many seem to think. The basic e-reader technology is fantastic; indeed, I prefer the Kindle screen to a printed book. Moreover, as you note, the marginal cost of selling and reading ebooks will continue to drop markedly. At this point, however, I can often purchase a used paper book for less than the digital version costs. I can also resell paper books at used book stores or online. As the book industry gets more digital, the used market is bound to change considerably. Still, a book is much more valuable to me if I can transfer it. Ereader software—at least for Barnes and Noble and Adobe's Digital Editions—allows DRM ebooks to be lent. Publishers easily could sell e-books in versions that can be permanently transfered. I would happily pay a couple bucks extra for a book that I actually own, as oppose to license, or at least license in a way that's more like real ownership. Obviously, ebooks are indestructible in a way that paper books are not. There's no degradation of an ebook. So, if publishers allow resale, that will significantly cut into sales of the title. At the same time, if a title is NOT transferable, that means there is no used market in ebooks. Which again raises the question as to why some publishers are whining so loudly about low ebook prices. My strong preference would be DRM-free ebooks that transfer ownership rights of a copy comparable to printed books. I own it, I can use it the way I want, and I can transfer it to others. I like to own stuff. That said, in most cases I'd probably rather pay significantly less for a transient, licensed ebook.

Paleo Pumpkin Pie

December 31, 2009

Over Christmas Jennifer made two pumpkin pies, one regular and one paleo. Here's a photo of the paleo pie, which is the regular pie minus the sugar and the crust:

The key to a good pumpkin pie is to start with real pie pumpkins. Cut the pumpkin in half, scrape out the seeds, and bake it, cut-side down in a bit of water, for around 45 minutes.

Jennifer bakes a great crust from a recipe in Baking With Julia.

Then, follow this recipe that we got from Jennifer's mom:

Mix:

* 1.5 cups pumpkin

* 3 eggs

* 0.5 cup sugar

* 1.25 teaspoon cinnamon

* 0.5 teaspoon salt

* 0.5 teaspoon ginger

* 0.5 teaspoon nutmeg

* 0.25 teaspoon ground cloves

* 1.66 cups heavy cream

(Note: The original recipe calls for a full cup of sugar, but the pie is plenty sweet with only half of a cup. Obviously for the paleo pie skip the sugar entirely.)

Pour into a 9 inch, unbaked pie shell, or, for the paleo pie, into a pie dish.

Bake at 425 degrees Fahrenheit for ten minutes. Reduce heat to 350 degrees and bake for an additional 30 to 35 minutes, until a poker (toothpick or cake tester) comes out clean. (Note: The pie usually puffs up during baking and then settles back down during cooling.)

Cool. Top with whipped cream. (We use pure cream whipped with vanilla, no sugar.) The original recipe calls for pecan topping, but we've never eaten it that way.

We really like both versions of this pie. We thought that, in the future, we'll try increasing the spice load for the paleo pie, but that's not necessary for a tasty pie.

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