The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page). Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Cutting Spending, Not Marginal Tax Rates For several decades now, Republicans have used cutting tax rates as a path to office. It worked--but it had consequences. There's no question that cutting marginal tax rates--especially in the higher brackets--promoted economic growth. I think it is also pretty well proved that the Laffer Curve was correct--that growth meant that revenues actually grew faster. Had spending kept pace with inflation, most of these tax cuts would have resulted in shrinking deficits--but alas, keeping spending under control with our current political system is pretty much impossible. As I previously mentioned, one downside of this is that increases the amount of wealth that people making above $200,000 a year have available to fund hard left causes. Can you imagine how small MoveOn would be if there weren't vast numbers of multimillionaires in America to keep them funded? Another consequence was that it ballooned deficits--because while cutting taxes makes you popular with the under $100,000 a year crowd, there has been relatively little conservative emphasis on cutting spending. And there's a reason for this. Cutting spending is a two-edged sword (maybe three edges). 1. Cutting spending means that some programs that put money into the pockets of rich people will have to be cut. For example, limiting farm price supports to people making less than $500,000 a year would infuriate large numbers of "gentleman farmers" who get a million dollars in farm price supports so that they can keep their Gulfstream V jets fueled up. There aren't millions of these people; there might be thousands or tens of thousands of them. Their votes don't much matter; their political contributions do. If Republicans were to run on a platform of cutting spending on programs for the extremely rich, we would have to work very aggressively on getting the word out to the masses--the people whose taxes are raised to keep those Gulfstream V jets fueled. 2. Cutting spending means that we would have to actually educate some significant number of voters about why some of these programs are not just expensive, but often bad ideas. Now, I know that there is no realistic possibility of educating most voters. You can only get their attention with slogans and simple ideas. (I like to think that these voters are almost all Democrats, but alas, there are more than a few Republicans who operate at this same lizard-like level.) There is a significant fraction of voters who are actually capable of thinking and learning. The problem is that so much of political campaigning is built around signs, bumper stickers, and simple slogans. To do this right is going to require some significant revision to how political campaigns operate. 3. At some point, we need to openly state that the reason that we are focusing on cutting spending is that the marginal tax rates are actually low enough now that there's really not any reason to cut them more. The harsh reality is that I look around America, and I see an awful lot of signs that a lot of people (especially in the higher salary ranges) now have more disposable income than they can sensibly use. There are an awful lot of teenagers developing no character at all because Mom and Dad have $200,000 a year coming in, and as a result, they are spoiling their kids rotten. General Motors & America You are doubtless aware of the famous statement by the chairman of GM, back some years ago: "For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa." If so, they are both in big trouble right now. GM closed on Friday at $3.01 per share of common stock. I understand that it is now at the lowest price since 1946. With 610 million shares of common stock outstanding, there are people that I used to work with who could buy a majority of GM shares without enormous strain--the whole value of the common stock is only about $2 billion. The prospect of GM going under is pretty terrifying, not because of sentimentality, but because this is one of the largest manufacturing companies on Earth, and at the core of much of the American economy. This whole bailout idiocy has done to American business what welfare does to ordinary people: it encourages those who might not need help to decide that it is easier to go on the dole. So, does anyone seriously think that the value of GM is only in the low billions? It owns a vast number of manufacturing plants. It has a pretty talented bunch of engineers who are capable of quite astonishing work. (If you don't believe this, take a Corvette out for a spin.) I am almost inclined to think that buying a thousand shares of GM wouldn't be a particularly risky thing to do at this price. UPDATE: A reader points out something that I remember reading a while back, and something that I didn't know. The UAW wants GM bailed out because then they get to continue to enjoy their extraordinary health insurance plan (no copayments, no premiums for employees or family--including for retirees)--and if the only way to keep this afloat is to have the federal government take over the insurance plan as a first step towards nationalized health care, all the better! GM management doesn't want to go bankrupt (even though it would let them force renegotiation of the UAW contract) because the preferred stock and associated options would become pretty much worthless. Remember that the UAW's contracts are a lot of why GM, Ford, and Chrysler are in such serious shape--while other company that make cars here (Honda, Mercedes, BMW, Subaru) are not. That's not the only reason (the Big Three have managed to do plenty of harm to themselves without union help)--but it is a big part of it. There's a reason that the other makers are located in right to work states, or at least states that aren't spectacularly union friendly. The Obligation To Confess In 1984, those who have been broken to the will of Big Brother confess to their crimes--and like the show trials of the Stalinist purges, they often confess to crimes that they did not commit, and that no one could possibly believe that they committed. We aren't quite to that point yet, but this commentary by Diana West really captures some of where we seem to be going as a society:
Those who live in homosexual dominated societies need to remember that they are no longer allowed to disagree--at least, if they don't want to choose between abject apologies and business ruination. Homosexuality, freedom: pick one. Labels: homosexuality Another Dot-Com.munism Success I mentioned a couple of days ago wanting some CDs to refresh my knowledge of German--and that ideally, they would be free, somewhere on the Internet. One of my readers pointed me to this collection of MP3s for teaching German, originally recorded by the U.S. government back in 1961. And there are dozens of other languages available as well! I don't know how good this will be, but it's free, and since I already have had several years of German, it isn't like I am starting from scratch. It is interesting to hear how differently the American speakers from 1961 sound--probably because back then, Eastern accents were still so common in recording. Not so now! Friday, November 14, 2008
Senator Boxer Sure Hires A Bunch of Weirdos Some years ago, it was one of her staff trying to get a handgun through security at San Francisco International, and giving some absurd claim that he worked for the CIA. Now, according to the November 14, 2008 Washington Post: So what's the problem? Poor screening? Or is just that the density of sick and deranged sorts is higher than usual where Senator Boxer is hiring? Oh yeah, the article goes on to mention another female Democratic senator with bad luck in hiring: Last month, a former Senate aide, James Michael McHaney, was sentenced to three years in prison on a federal charge of possession of child pornography. McHaney, 28, was arrested last year in a sting and fired from his job in the office of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). My Literary Agent Has Retired If you have some positive experience with an agent getting a publisher for your book, please let me know. My agent did say, I did give the first 30 or so pages of your book a quick read. It's an interesting take on an important subject and well written, so I'm fairly confident the right agent will be able to place it at the right home for it.Nelson Current published my previous book, and the contract gives them right of first refusal for this book. (I'm still waiting to hear from them.) The book is tentatively titled Personal Tragedies: Mental Illness, Deinstitutionalization, and Homelessness. Books about mental illness fit into two broad categories: personal accounts of what happened to a family member; and scholarly histories. I get the impression that the former sell well, but don't much move the public policy discussion, while books in the latter category don't sell well at all. My book is something of a hybrid, in that some chapters recount the tragedy that overcame my older brother, and other chapters examine the history of deinstitutionalization and its effects on our society. I am hoping that the combination may result in a book that sells well, and influences public policy. But I'll be happy if it just sells well! You can see a list of my books at http://www.claytoncramer.com/books/books.htm; scholarly articles at http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/journals.htm; popular magazine articles at http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/popularmagazines.htm. Oh yes, the Supreme Court cited some of my work in a recent decision, D.C. v. Heller (2008). Suggestions? Recommendations? Labels: my books There's One Part of the Economy That Is Doing Well Those engaged in the selling of guns. I had heard that there was an increase in gun sales in the weeks before the election. At least here in Idaho, it has exploded since the election. One of the gun stores here in the Treasure Valley sold $20,000 worth of guns on the Saturday after the election! A friend who attended the gun show this last weekend tells me that there was a twenty minute wait to get inside, because of how long the line was. Guns that were going unsold for $350 at the previous gun show were snapped up at $450. People were buying cases of ammunition--and our local economy has been hit hard by layoffs the last several months. A fair number of people are worried that we might be headed down the path that Allende's election took Chile. I think that's unlikely, although not impossible, when you consider the genocidal crazies that helped start Obama's career. But it is best to be prepared. Labels: gun self-defense Just A Coincidence, I'm Sure From the November 13, 2008 San Jose Mercury-News: LOS ANGELES—Authorities say a Mormon temple in Los Angeles has been closed after employees received a letter containing a white powdery substance.Election doesn't go your way? Respond with terrorist attacks. That's mature. Labels: homosexuality Thursday, November 13, 2008
Learning German CD I'm thinking of using the 4 1/2 hours of travel time each direction to Bend to brush up on my German. Any recommendations for a CD that I might be able to find in a bookstore? Or perhaps one that I could buy online and download? Even better: something that is free? (I subscribe to the dot-com.munist theory that everything on the Internet should be free, or at least paid for by someone else.) UPDATE: Actually, paid for the by taxpayers, long, long ago. See here for a series of MP3s originally created by the U.S. government for teaching German--and dozens of other languages as well! Bringing Back The Blacklist Back in the 1950s, blacklisting was evil! People that were accused of being (and many actually were) Communists couldn't get work! Evil! Bad! Nasty! Reactionary! And it's coming back! From the November 13, 2008 Sacramento Bee: Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.Professor Volokh points to the current California laws that almost touch this issue. California law does prohibit firing someone for political activity--the Unruh Civil Rights Act. But it doesn't appear that Eckern was pressured to resign. I don't even have any fundamental objection to boycotts and such. What I do object to is the totalitarian hypocrisy of the homosexual activists. In Gay Law Students Association v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph (Cal. 1979), homosexual activists argued that being "out" at work was a political act, and therefore protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act--and yet here they are, trying to get this guy fired from his job for not thinking correctly. I do find it fascinating that homosexual activists insist that the government should prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and even to require a freelance photographer to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. But they also insist that they have the right to threaten an employer with economic damage if they don't fire one of their employees. Make no mistake about it: homosexual activists do not want one set of laws that applies equally to all. They want the power to force independent businesses to do business with them, regardless of sexual orientation--but also insist that they should have to right to threaten businesses that employ people, regardless of their political orientation. Freedom, homosexuality: pick one. UPDATE: What do you know: there is an actual blacklist, right here. You might consider this a list of people that deserve our support, encouragement, and business (if they are in business). Labels: homosexuality When Phone Numbers Go Bad Someone named Amanda at a company or organization named ACT called me at the company in Bend where I am consulting, and let a phone number. But the phone number is wrong. I haven't left the number anywhere, and so I assume that this person saw that I was consulting to this company on my resume. Therefore, whoever this company ACT is in the 208 area code, they are probably calling me about a local job--and I have no idea who they are. If you have any idea who a company named ACT in Idaho might be, let me know. "Kool-Aid Drinkers" If you don't know why conservatives use this expression to refer to the leftists prepared to defend any outrage of their heroes, this brief remembrance of the Jonestown massacre 30 years ago will help: I should point out that while there were many Jonestown residents who drank the Kool-Aid willingly, and in full knowledge of what was in it, many others were threatened at gunpoint by Jones's machine gun wielding "security force," and many were children who had no idea what was going on.Shiva Naipaul's Journey to Nowhere: A New World Tragedy (1981) discusses some of the involvement of progressive San Francisco Democrats in breaking laws and bending rules to help make this tragedy happen. UPDATE: I am reminded that the drink mix was actually from a company called "Flavor-Aid" and I should expect a reminder from the makers of Kool-Aid shortly! Applying The Fairness Doctrine To Public Schools Democrats are talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine as a way to bring "balance" to talk radio. Air America tried to do that--and the left discovered that there was no market for hard left talk radio--even in big cities. Now, I'm not generally impressed with talk radio. I wasn't impressed with it back when the left dominated the field back in the 1960s. If I could somehow force Americans to read for information, I would be much happier. Even liberal newspapers and magazines like the Washington Post and Newsweek do a better job than liberal broadcast media of covering multiple perspectives--perhaps because you can read a lot more words per minute than you hear. But if the Fairness Doctrine is such an important technique for making sure that broadcast radio is "fair" and presents both sides of an issue--why not apply the same law to public schools, K-12 and universities? In both cases, the theory is the same: the airwaves belong to the public; so do the public schools. Broadcast misinformation is bad for democracy; ditto for teacher misinformation. And as much as I agree that talk radio leans to the right, it is nothing like the manner in which the educational system leans so hard to the left that it can't even get off the floor. What would be the practical effects of applying the Fairness Doctrine to education? If you are teaching American history, for every hour you spend teaching about slavery, the Fairness Doctrine would require that you bring in a representative from one of the neo-Confederate groups to present their perspective. If you teach about the Holocaust, someone presenting the "Holocaust didn't happen" perspective (or perhaps, "the Holocaust was a good thing" perspective) would get the same amount of time with your students. Indeed, you might end up having to decide whether to split the time among these two groups, or give each of them the same amount of time that you spent teaching that the Holocaust was a bad thing. If you are a biology teacher, and you teach about evolution, then this question of fairness gets even more interesting. The Young Earthers will demand equal time (and in geology class, too!); the Old Earth Creationists will insist that the Intelligent Design crowd really aren't on the same side (and this is true), so they will demand equal time. And the Intelligent Design crowd will demand equal time. Can you see why the biology teacher might decide just to skip the whole evolution unit? And this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do. The Fairness Doctrine would require that for every hour of conservative talk radio which makes money selling advertising space, the radio stations would need to run an hour of left-wing talk radio--and lose piles of money. In practice, it would make conservative talk radio so unprofitable that talk radio would largely disappear. And that's the goal: to shut down what has become the only significant counterweight to the left's domination of broadcast radio and television. Labels: freedom of speech Tuesday, November 11, 2008
We Aren't Past Race, Unfortunately On the History of the South email list, the moderator asked members to discuss what, if anything, President Obama's election has to say about the decline in racism in American society. I pointed out that while I had voted for McCain, it was a positive sign that at least for white Americans, race was no longer the big issue that it had been for so long. Obama wasn't elected just by blacks, but by a large number of white voters. I mentioned that I had attended a "redneck barbecue" a few weeks before the election, and I heard a great many concerns about Obama, but race wasn't one of them. I did point out, however, that at least 90% of black voters voted for Obama--a level that suggests that while race doesn't necessarily drive whites anymore, race still matters to blacks. After all, it is implausible that 90% of American blacks agreed more with Obama than McCain. The reactions from other members of the list (which is almost entirely professors and grad students) was, unfortunately, quite predictable. I was told that of course it was plausible that only 10% of American blacks agreed with McCain. So I pointed out these facts. For starters, in California, a large majority of black voters supported Proposition 8, to limit marriage to one man, one woman. According to the November 8, 2008 Los Angeles Times: Although many of the state's black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1.Obama clearly opposed Proposition 8. While McCain certainly didn't stick his nose into that initiative, it is quite clear that McCain was on the same side of the issue as more than 2/3 of black California voters. This Zobgy poll shows that a majority of blacks, like John McCain (and quite emphatically opposite of Barack Obama), are pro-life. Those are just two fairly hot button issues where a majority of blacks nationally, or a supermajority in the nation's most populous state, agree with McCain, not Obama. If American blacks were a completely homogenous group with respect to income, poverty, and life experiences, I would find the claim that 90% of American blacks just happened to vote for the first black President at least half plausible. But the fact is that while there is still a disproportionate number American blacks who are poor, the majority are economically hard to distinguish from their white countrymen. So yes, I find it utterly unbelievable that 90% of black voters voted for Obama simply based on issues other than race. Someone is Very Confused Instapundit points to this news report is about homosexual activists disrupting church services:
A gay anarchist group infiltrated the Mt. Hope Church in Eaton County Sunday morning, disrupting a service by pulling a fire alarm, dropping leaflets and yelling at parishioners, a pastor said.Gay anarchism--there's a concept that someone hasn't thought through very carefully! Anarchism means the absence of government--so there's no one to call if gay bashers decide to beat up homosexuals, there's no one to punish employers that refuse to hire homosexuals, and there's no government to recognize your same-sex "marriage." It is true that if you are a large and powerful minority of the population you may not need government to protect you--you can protect yourself. The experience of the post-Reconstruction South, however, suggests that even if your minority group is almost half the population, you need government to protect some basic human rights (such as the right to not be lynched). Homosexuals are, at most, about 3% of the population, and outside of big cities, more like 1% of the population. If this is really the fiercely homophobic society that these activists believe, anarchism is the last thing that they would want. Labels: homosexuality Who Elected Obama? This column from the November 11, 2008 The Politico reports something that doesn't surprise me at all--the people who are supposedly going to be soaked for taxes by Obama voted for him: Barack Obama promised he would lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans and presumably raise them for the 5 percent who benefited most under President Bush’s tax policies. But, remarkably, the most affluent 5 percent supported Obama and that was perhaps the key to his victory last week.So the well-off--and indeed, the extremely well-off--voted for Obama--and the "youth vote" surge turns out to be non-existent. I think we can count on the fact that Obama is not going to raise taxes on a core constituency, but on people making below $100,000 a year. UPDATE: I thought about this in the shower this morning. I've made the observation in the past that high income voters are overwhelmingly in support of higher taxes and Democrats--as the 2004 pre-election polls showed. One of the reasons that Republicans can't hold onto power is that their policies promoting economic growth and low income tax rates--especially in the higher brackets--end up creating vast swarms of highly paid, undertaxed voters--who reward Republicans for this by voting Democratic. Democrats can't hold onto power because their tax policies wipe out many of these highly paid, undertaxed voters--and middle class voters (those making under $100,000 a year) start to predominate again. If Republicans want to hold onto power next time the Democrats flub it, they should make these the core of their plan: 1. Under no circumstances should they cut income tax rates on those making above $100,000 a year. This just strengthens the Democrats. 2. The primary focus of tax cuts, even though it is economically unproductive, should be middle class voters. The families making $40,000 to $80,000 a year are the only realistic Republican base. 3. Emphasize policies that help workers at the very bottom--the ones making $25,000 a year, because of competition from illegal aliens. Indeed, stopping employers from hiring illegal aliens would be an example of such a policy. Labels: 2008 presidential candidates Sunday, November 09, 2008
Oh Great, Two Major National Disasters To Her Credit The decision to firewall FBI's criminal investigation and foreign intelligence divisions which helped to bring about 9/11, and her involvement with the Fannie Mae scandal. and Obama is considering her for Attorney General. See this November 9, 2008 New York Times story. If Republicans had any guts, they would make this a major story in her confirmation hearings. So For Much For Drilling From a November 9, 2008 Associated Press story about Obama's plans to use executive orders: WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.I'm not sure exactly which lands they are talking about, but I guess that Obama doesn't have too much concern about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. High Finance I was planning to pay off the only car loan we have, but the more I do the math, the less sense it makes. I owe a bit under $18,000 on it. If I put the money into a five year CD at the credit union, I can earn 4.30% on it--or about $774 a year. I'm in roughly a 39% combined federal and state income tax marginal rate bracket (and I will probably still be there next year, unless Obama was lying to all of us--which could never be!) That's $472.14 a year after taxes, or $39.34 a month interest income. The last car payment statement shows that I paid about $65 in interest to GMAC for the month (and this isn't tied to a house mortgage, so none of it is deductible). So if I paid off the car loan, instead of putting the money in a CD, I would save about $25 a month--this year. Because the finance charge is calculated based on declining balance, next year the finance charge that I will be paying will be less (probably about $50-55 a month), so I would only save about $10-$15 a month by paying off the loan right now. The savings is so small, and the advantage of having the money in savings is so substantial, that it just doesn't make much sense to pay off the car loan. Lessons for the Republican Party That is, if they are interested in learning anything from the 2008 election. Social Conservativism Is A Powerful Force Americans are a lot more socially conservative than McCain was prepared to admit. Even in California with the enormous resources of the media devoted to stopping Proposition 8, it still passed! Because in some factions, GOP stands for Gay Old Party, it is difficult to persuade a lot of the party movers and shakers to take a consistent position about homosexuality. "What consenting adults do in private is none of the government's business. Don't try to force others to recognize or approve your relationship, and we'll be happy to leave you alone." I recognize that Americans are not generally pro-life, but Obama's positions on abortion were so extreme that McCain, had he chosen to do so, could have devastated Obama even with many Democrats. Obama supported partial birth abortion, and even refused to oppose neglectful infanticide for abortion survivors when he was in the Illinois State Senate. These are positions that even most Democrats can't stomach. Experience & Governor Palin I liked Governor Palin, and she did energize the base. I think that by 2012, she may have enough experience to be a serious candidate. I understand why McCain picked her. McCain was trying to mend fences with the social conservatives that he has been insulting throughout the campaign. McCain was also trying motivate a lot of Clinton backers who were driven entirely by sexual identity. (Yes, they were out there--it wasn't just upset about how Obama treated Clinton during the primaries.) But clearly, picking Palin damaged any arguments about Obama's experience. Yes, Palin had more experience than Obama, but it wasn't an overwhelming advantage. Ideals & Motivating the Young I received an email from someone who was convinced that Obama's support among young people was because they were drunk or stoned, and didn't understand for whom they were voting. Doubtless there were such supporters, but Obama's base of support was overwhelmingly in the 18-30 age group, and the Baby Boomer generation. The hopelessly loaded crowd wouldn't have been so successful in turning out the vote! Young people and intellectuals throughout history have responded very well to politicians who preach idealistic solutions to complex problems. When John Kennedy talked in his inaugural address about "we will bear any burden, pay any price" and "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was engaging in this same idealistic approach that appealed to the young. A rather darker example, however: German Hochschule and college students, as well as their teachers and professors, overwhelmingly voted for the National Socialist German Workers Party in the 1932 elections (the first German election in which 18 year olds were allowed to vote), paving the way for Hitler's rise to power in January of 1933. The National Socialist campaign slogan that year was "Gemeinnuetz vor Einnuetz" (Common needs before individual needs). Young people, because they lack experience, are easily persuaded by idealistic slogans. With time, you learn how to tell when a politician is lying (his lips are moving). You might still vote for a politician, or actively support him, but you learn not to be too trusting--certainly not to the level of idolatry that we saw. Intellectuals, because they they are focused on ideas, also tend to let a beautiful theory take precedence over reality. In theory, the dominance of post-modernism in the academic community (which denies that there are any universals) should have scrapped this--but in practice, the intellectuals' enthusiasm for theories still wins. Republicans need to emphasize ideals in order to motivate young people and perhaps even some intellectuals. There are a lot of conservative and libertarian ideals, and the Republican Party made a terrible mistake putting someone like McCain at the top of the ticket. I can respect McCain's service to his nation, but he clearly is not a thinker. He doesn't even seem to read any thinkers. It's a sad day indeed when you find yourself comparing the nominee to Ronald Reagan and saying, "Reagan, at least by comparison, was an intellectual." Libertarian Values & The Soul of the Republican Party One of the biggest advantages that the Democrats had this time around is that they cynically and dishonestly played the religion card. The idea of a Christian commonwealth provides for assistance to the poor and disabled, true, and conservatives do not disagree--they usually are only arguing about whether a particular strategy is the most effective. But if Democrats were serious about this Christian commonwealth idea, they wouldn't be simultaneously arguing in favor of sexual promiscuity as a good thing, Hollywood's promotion of depravity, and homosexuality. There's a profound dishonesty in using Jesus' teachings about the poor, while ignoring everything else that Jesus said. Republicans have been pretty well blocked from pursuing Democratic hypocrisy on that because the Republican Party has a serious ideological split. Social conservatives generally would agree on the principle that the government has an obligation to the poor and oppressed, even if they might disagree about the most effective methods of solving these problems. Libertarians do not even agree on the principle that the government has such an obligation. They believe that this is properly an individual responsibility--which is a fine concept--and one that is morally consistent with Christianity--but unfortunately, it does not seem to be sufficient in a modern, highly anonymous urban scociety. And there are more than a few Republicans who aren't in any sense "libertarian," but for reasons of selfishness, believe that the government should do nothing to give a hand up to those at the bottom. As someone that I used to know in the Libertarian Party put it, "Give the poor a helping hand? We should kick them while they're down until they get up and start working!" (And this was someone who grew up in an orphanage, and didn't have life handed to her on a silver platter.) Here in Idaho, there are a lot of people that consider themselves "conservatives" but are really more libertarian. Often they regard the social conservatives as a problem for the Republican Party--and fail to recognize that the social conservative message actually has great potential to appeal to many decent and concerned Democrats who are motivated by Christian goodwill. Wow! Watching TV Influences Behavior! What a surprise! From the November 3, 2008 Washington Post (that well known organ of the Religious Right): Teenagers who watch a lot of television featuring flirting, necking, discussion of sex and sex scenes are much more likely than their peers to get pregnant or get a partner pregnant, according to the first study to directly link steamy programming to teen pregnancy.Now, I am prepared to consider other possible explanations. Perhaps those teenagers who are most inclined towards sexual activity are drawn to "steamy programming"--and the kids who are wearing the "True Love Waits" rings only watch wholesome shows. But isn't it more likely that just like TV commercials makes people want to buy the goods advertised, that watching sexually charged materials might incline teenagers (whose bodies are already rather primed for this) to do more than think about having sex? Here's a really wild idea: what do you think would happen if TV shows vigorously promoted chastity, sobriety, hard work, respect for others, and education? I'm not suggesting that every teenager in America would suddenly fly right. Rebellion is, unfortunately, part of what many (most?) teenagers do, as a way of differentiating themselves from their parents. But think about the kids who are drawn to promiscuity, substance abuse, laziness. Do you suppose if the popular culture were discouraging these behaviors, that some of those kids might not go the wrong direction, or at least not go so far? I'm not looking for Father Knows Best TV shows. But part of why I can't watch a lot of sitcoms that are on broadcast TV (besides their inanity) is how embarrassingly vulgar they have become. What started out an attempt to make TV shows more "realistic" has in turn created a popular vulgarity that then justifies making TV shows even more vulgar--in the continuing pursuit of "realism" (as if many sitcoms are realistic in any other respect). This is a positive feedback loop--each decline in entertainment media encourages a decline in the real world, which turns into another decline in the entertainment media. Hollywood is winning the culture wars--and that includes in the homes of a lot of devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Labels: decline and fall of Western civilization Is Obama Testing The Waters? A reader is part of the Zogby International polling group--and tells me that he just received this list of questions from Zogby. Note that this was after the election. One possibility is that Obama's staff is trying to figure out which measures they can propose without impairing Obama's popularity. If these are actually measures that Obama is considering, then an awful lot of Americans were indeed profoundly misled about what Obama stands for during the campaign. The 75% excise tax on firearms in particular would devastate the industry, and strongly discourage new firearms purchases. The other possibility is that Republicans are trying to figure out which issues to use against Obama--but some of these proposals are so extreme and specific that it seems to suggest the first possibility. On the other hand, some of the questions almost read like Republican push polling: If you knew Barack Obama supported a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms - where a $500 rifle would now cost $875 with tax, would that have made you...UPDATE: Some readers think this is Republican push polling (where you ask questions designed to create, not measure public opinion). Yes, some of these questions seem to read that way--but Zogby is doing this polling, and I can't imagine them push polling, and certainly not for the Republicans. I'm still mystified by it, but it does look like Obama might be trying to see how far he can push his agenda without damaging his popularity. Labels: 2008 presidential candidates |
