Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Stop truncating the Y-axis Via Chris Blattman (scroll down the post of links), a pair of examples, including the one below, on why truncating the Y-axis on graphs (not starting from O) is misleading. Editors: stop it. MP departures: do they matter? Bloomberg has a story about MP departures (not just retirements) and what they mean historically for the governing party. This October, at least 46 of the 166 Conservative MPs elected in 2011 are not running again. Some have already departed: death and retirements. There are new incumbents in a handful of those ridings, so the 46 number is slightly exaggerated. This dropout rate is the third highest since World War II and while pundits seem to think this bodes ill for the Tories, the 1953 Liberals -- one of the two times there was a higher departure rate -- won re-election. The 1993 Tories, were reduced to a rump caucus of two, so their problems were much larger than having 40% of their incumbents choose not to run again. What is notable, however, is that usually when there is a high departure rate, the prime minister (and party leader) is also replaced. The one time when at least a quarter of MPs did not seek re-election and the prime minister stayed at the helm was 1953 -- when Louis St. Laurent won re-election. So maybe Harper will be okay. The Bloomberg story reports that "Harper will be without several key lieutenants" and that could hurt the Conservatives in October. Maybe. But the same story's penultimate paragraph begins "The electoral impact of individual MPs has been lessened as Canadian campaigns become more 'presidentialized' by focusing on leaders," according to one source they talked to. In an era of leader-centric campaigns, the team around the prime minister matters much less; it might have mattered when Stephen Harper was not known commodity. Usually questions about whether there is a sufficient bench upon which to draw talent to fill a cabinet is reserved for new or rising parties, but it is unclear how much those questions translate into voting preferences. Ultimately, Canadians aren't electing any party because of who's filling the Industry or Justice portfolio, but the person who will making those appointments: the prime minister. Two parties have serious adults vying for that job; the Liberals do not. If a party has to trot out Bill Morneau and Andrew Leslie it's because they know their leader is weak and they need to try to instill confidence in a public that doesn't quite trust the Liberal leader to be a serious adult. Lastly, a party that has lost James Moore and Peter MacKay is better off than a party that still has Carolyn Bennett and Hedy Fry. UPDATE: The final sentence could have been phrased better, but you get the point. No insult intended to Moore or MacKay. 'Planetary Defense is a Public Good' Alex Tabarrok notes that today is Asteroid Day and not enough is being done to protect us Earthlings from the catastrophic impact of being struck by a large asteroid. There is a $200,000 Indiegogo campaign for a "near-Earth object mitigation technology study." Tabarrok points to a research published in Nature that suggests the casualties associated with a large-asteroid strike would exceed that of plane crashes or many other natural disasters. Note that Brian May of Queen is one of the people behind Asteroid Day. Here is a video that looks like a movie trailer: Tweet of the day Jim Treacher: "No, gay marriage won't be used as a weapon against churches," say the people who want to shut down a bakery for refusing to bake a cake. Not The Onion Crowdfunding Greek Bailout Fund on Indiegogo seeking 1.6 billion euros by next Tuesday. Incentives includes postcards of Greek Prime Minister, Greek salad, and ouzo. (HT: MarketWatch) Monday, June 29, 2015
A park is no place for kids Lenore Skenazy at Hit & Run: A 7-year-old in Westbrook, Maine, was playing at the park within eyesight of her family’s house. Someone called 911 (of course) and the police swooped in. They took the girl to the precinct because, as this WMTW reporter notes, “Mom wasn’t watching.”What? Mom didn’t devote her afternoon to sitting at the side of the park and watching her child’s every move? Tsk, tsk. The child was on her own for about an hour, and as Police Chief Janine Roberts told the reporter, “That’s a long time for a 7-year-old girl to be by herself any place, let alone a park.”Yes, the park is certainly the last place you’d ever want to see a kid hanging out. What kind of crazy mom would let her child go there? Of course the mom was charged with child endangerment. Judy Blume vs. trigger warnings: 'in any book there could be something to bother somebody' Robby Soave at Hit & Run on Judy Blume: Famed children’s book author Judy Blume is no fan of trigger warnings. In an interview during the Bay Area Book Festival earlier in June, Blume lamented that many on the left are now pushing censorship with the same zeal as the 1980s religious right.“From the 1980s, from the extreme religious right where it all started, we’ve come to a lot of book-challenging from the left, also,” she said.She singled out trigger warnings for special criticism.“All books, then, need trigger warnings, because in any book there could be something to bother somebody,” she said. Nicholls on gag laws Writing in the Toronto Sun Gerry Nicholls says that freedom of speech (and freedom of association, through various advocacy organizations) is a basic freedom, and that attempts to limit political speech is anathema to democracy: The more voices heard, the more debate that’s raised, the more points of view expressed, the better, right?Democracy should be a free market place of competing ideas. Yet some in the media and in academia are currently calling for new laws that would stifle free democratic speech.Mind you, they don’t put it in such blunt terms. Rather they argue that “Third parties,” i.e. any group that’s not a political party, -- taxpayer advocacy organizations, church groups, environmental associations --should be strictly regulated and controlled and as much as possible silenced.More specifically their aim is to prevent independent organizations or groups of private citizens from having the freedom to spend money on political ads. Nicholls points out that gag laws give political parties "an effective monopoly on debate," along with the media (that would be a duopoly, but it's just as unholy). He also says that election campaign limits are easily extended from campaign to permanent feature of our politics year-round once the principle that political speech should be regulated is conceded. It is hypocritical for a Conservative Party that ostensibly cares about liberty to entertain expanding draconian gag laws outside the Writ period, when they should, in fact, be scrapping the existing limits. There is also a hint of contradiction on the Left among those who support gag laws (either during or outside the formal campaign period) yet are concerned that the Canada Revenue Agency is cracking down on charities for political activity. George Will's seven-word law of campaign finance should apply to political parties and non-governmental organizations: no cash, no foreign money, full disclosure. This would allow all citizens to participate in a transparent way, and provide a counterweight to the ability of the political parties and media to decide which issues are within the realm of permissible debate. On Apple banning the Confederate flag David Foster at Chicago Boyz: Apple Computer, also, is following a similar course. They have banned the use of the Confederate flag even as a marker for units in Civil War simulation games sold on the App Store. (Specifically, they have banned any such marker appearing on a screenshot of the game which will appear in the store.)Several days ago, I linked an article arguing that modern “liberalism,” or “progressivism,” or whatever they call themselves, is now almost purely a symbolic project. The Apple policy that I described about represents symbol-obsession taken to a level that is truly insane ...While banning the use of the Confederate flag even for purposes of unit-identification icons, Apple has apparently not restricted the use of the Nazi swastika for similar purposes in WWII simulation games. I don’t conclude from this that Apple is a group of Nazi sympathizers, rather, that they are a group of herd-followers and enforcers of the “progressive” herd’s current direction, whatever that direction may be. (Apple once used the slogan “Think Different”…now, it seems, their slogan should be “think like you are supposed to!) Cameron: no tolerance for Islamic terrorism British Prime Minister David Cameron has a column in the Sunday Telegraph following the murder of vacationers on a Tunisia beach at the hands of Muslim terrorists last week: When the gunman attacked innocent people spending time with their families on the beach, he was attacking the very things we stand for.We must be stronger at standing up for our values – of peace, democracy, tolerance, freedom. We must be more intolerant of intolerance – rejecting anyone whose views condone the Islamist extremist narrative and create the conditions for it to flourish.We must strengthen our institutions that put our values into practice: our democracy, our rule of law, the rights of minorities, our free media, our law enforcements – all the things the terrorists hate. 2016 watch (Bernie Sanders edition) The Washington Times says that the anti-Hillary Clinton vote in the Democratic primaries is coalescing around socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and it reports on a number of polls showing that Clinton's lead over Sanders is decreasing in the first caucus (Iowa) and first primary (New Hampshire): In Iowa, Mr. Sanders climbed to 26 percent in a Bloomberg Politics Poll released last week, up from previous polls showing his support in the mid-teens. He had nearly cut in half Mrs. Clinton’s lead.The former first lady, senator and secretary of state captured 50 percent in the new poll, topping Mr. Sanders by 26 points. Her advantage over Mr. Sanders had shrunk from 41 points, when she had 57 percent support a month ago in a similar Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll.In New Hampshire, two polls showed Mr. Sanders on the rise.He trailed Mrs. Clinton by just 8 points, 43 percent to 35 percent, in a WMUR/CNN Granite State Poll — his most stunning finish to date.He climbed to 24 percent in a Bloomberg Politics poll of likely voters in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation Democratic primary. Mrs. Clinton won 56 percent for a 32-point lead in that poll, compared to a 44-point lead she held over Mr. Sanders in a similar poll in early May. The other Democratic candidates have almost no support whatsoever: "The other Democratic contenders — former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, were relegated to just 1 percent, 2 percent or less in the new Iowa and New Hampshire polls." Sunday, June 28, 2015
Remy on TSA Remy's latest spoof, on the imminently spoofable Transportation Security Administration. Worker training Tyler Cowen comments: "[C]orporate investments in worker training may decline as the likelihood of freelance work rises. That too favors self-starters, who can learn on their own." I assume that means more tax credits in the future for people who take courses to train and retrain themselves. Fresh vs. processed The Atlantic reports that as long as we're talking fruits and vegetables, frozen food doesn't matter that much. Chips and soda should be avoided, but not frozen corn or peaches. The Atlantic: “I would buy a frozen peach,” said Hugh Acheson, a chef and owner of four restaurants in Georgia. “The problem with the peach that was grown in Chile and then put in a refrigerated system and then put on a ship…is it was grown four months ago.”In that case, the “fresh” peach may well have lost some of its nutritional value on the journey. Whereas if the frozen peach was frozen shortly after harvest, it probably retained more nutrients. Quoting from the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture: Depending on the commodity, freezing and canning processes may preserve nutrient value. While the initial thermal treatment of canned products can result in loss, nutrients are relatively stable during subsequent storage owing to the lack of oxygen. Frozen products lose fewer nutrients initially because of the short heating time in blanching, but they lose more nutrients during storage owing to oxidation. In addition to quality degradation, fresh fruits and vegetables usually lose nutrients more rapidly than canned or frozen products. NYC cab drivers ticketed for Blazing Cat Fur points to this New York Post story: The NYPD went on a taxi ticketing blitz outside a mosque on the Upper West Side while drivers were inside reciting Ramadan prayers Friday, The Post learned.At least one officer handed out nearly 100 tickets on the streets surrounding the Islamic Cultural Center on Riverside Drive near West 72nd Street, said cabby Mohammad Zaman.“This is a special prayer time, a time for religion. We double-park here every Friday and they [allow it], but today they gave us all tickets, almost 100 cabs,” he said. ...“I can’t help but to think they are being prejudiced. They don’t understand. We have to be here.” Prejudiced or upholding the fucking traffic laws that cabbies are supposed to obey? Gay marriage and the speed of change At FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver says the shift in attitudes on gay marriage has been swift, even if same-sex marriage activists (and homosexuals) wished it didn't take a decade since the first state in the Union legalized it in 2004. Many opponents of same-sex marriage doubt the polls that show six in ten Americans now approve of such unions, yet it seems that even if there is some error in the polling -- and I don't think there is -- a significant shift in public opinion has occurred over the past decade or so. Silver points to a long Paul Graham essay from 2004 on "What You Can't Say" and excerpts these two paragraphs: It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.Is our time any different? To anyone who has read any amount of history, the answer is almost certainly no. It would be a remarkable coincidence if ours were the first era to get everything just right. Silver concludes his piece: But as Graham writes, there are any number of issues on which the moral consensus we have today will be regarded as backward by our children or grandchildren. So as you celebrate or commiserate tonight, maintain some humility too. Gay marriage wasn’t the first issue on which society changed its mind, and it surely won’t be the last. What makes it unusual is that the shift has occurred within our generation, fast enough for us Americans to experience it firsthand. Michael Kinsley wrote a Washington Post column in 2004 on the quickening pace of change when it came to civil rights in the United States. He noted in the late 1980s he was introduced to the idea of gay marriage and few major polling firms were asking Americans about the issue, yet within 15 years, it was a part of mainstream discussion as Massachusetts began sanctioning such marriages. (Kinsley admits that the purpose of publishing Andrew Sullivan's 1989 essay in The New Republic was to "stick it" to conservatives and promote awareness of gay issues, if not exactly gay marriage.) Kinsley said: Take a moment to consider how amazing this is. Just 15 years after that New Republic essay, marriage is the defining goal of the gay rights movement. There were more modest possibilities, emphasizing tolerance and nondiscrimination. But gay rights have blown right past those milestones and are headed to the next one, which is official approval. Kinsley adds: This development is not just amazing, it is inspiring. American society hasn't used up its capacity to recognize that it harbors an injustice and it remains supple enough to change as a result. In fact, the process is speeding up. It took African American civil rights a century and feminism a half-century to travel the distance gay rights have moved in a decade and a half. Kinsley might have been premature. It was becoming accepted in 2004, but in 2008 the Democratic presidential candidate still That means that all of us who consider ourselves good-hearted, well-meaning, empathetic Americans -- but don't claim to be great visionaries -- are probably staring right now at an injustice that will soon seem obvious -- and we just don't see it. Somewhere in this country a gay black woman, grateful beneficiary of past and present perceptual transformations, has said something today in all innocence that will strike her just a few years from now as unbelievably callous, cruel and wrong. The full legal and societal acceptance of transgender individuals will probably be complete by 2020 or 2025 -- about a decade or half-decade since the first mainstream appearances of transgender rights as a cause. What will be next? Some candidates for new beneficiaries of legal/civil rights and tolerance from the broader public over the next 20-30 years: sex rights for children; tolerance for pedophiles (as a separate issue from sex rights for children, and for different reasons); some animals because higher primates are currently winning rights cases in the U.S.; other animals due to the end of eating meat taken from live animals (replaced by harvesting clonal meat); and the one I'm most confident predicting, the end of incarcerating violent criminals (neurological advances undermine free will and minimize moral culpability). I hope I'm wrong on all of these. The problem with these predictions is that few people saw the coming rights revolutions and new-found acceptance of previously excluded populations of the past. We live in an age in which satire is impossible At NRO, Katherine Kimpf reports: Feminist social-justice heroes recently started the hashtag #LiveTweetYourPeriod to reduce the “stigma” that women experience surrounding their periods — only to be criticized by other social-justice heroes for covering it as women’s issue because transgender men have periods too. Saturday, June 27, 2015
Among the many reasons I won't run for elected office Mostly personal (family) and ideological (too libertarian to draw a paycheck from the state), but also because I'm entirely not electable. First, my views are a combination of both too radical and too reactionary for any political party or the voters. Second, I'd refuse to pander and look like an idiot, like Toronto's mayor. Times change And it shows that the Left is a bunch of hypocrites who change the rules when they're in power. Kathy Shaidle says at Five Feet of Fury: The same people who told us 30 years ago that “marriage is just a stupid piece of paper” now insist that it’s a “human right.”The same people who told us that “a flag is just a meaningless piece of material” now want certain flags banned and others raised — or else.The same people who say you can’t change who you want to f*ck tell us you CAN change the bits you f*ck them with.The same people who said “Hey, if you don’t like it, change the channel” now run #StopRush and try to ban Ann Coulter et al from campuses.The same people who used to tell us to “lighten up” and “learn to take a joke” now fire people who make them.LITERALLY the same people. Chow might be interested in returning to elected politics Toronto Star: "Olivia Chow not ruling out federal election run." The story suggests the NDP's chance of forming government could entice Chow, who has been holding office or running for it since the mid-1980s, back into elected politics. Fifteen months ago she resigned as MP in order to run for mayor of Toronto. There was a by-election to replace her. In the municipal election, the Toronto voters rejected her -- Chow finished third. Now she is reportedly interested in returning to Ottawa. But what if the NDP doesn't win government? Will she fulfill her mandate? Or will taxpayers be on the hook for another by-election? Too many lefty politicians hover around politics after voters reject them. Chow is a part-time instructor at Ryerson, a bullshit job given to people like her (and Judy Rebick and other left-wing activist types), but what else is Chow qualified to do? Depression and euthanasia David Gratzer's reading this week is on the New Yorker article about a Belgian woman who was killed by her physician because she seemed to suffer some sort of malaise. Gratzer doesn't render an opinion on the growing problem of medically murdering people with mental illness -- seemingly in contravention of so-called safeguards that require mental competence and psychiatric evaluations before a doctor assists a suicide or carries out euthanasia -- but his comments are instructive in helping think about the coming regime of assisted-death in Canada (thanks to the Carter decision). Seldom asked questions Tim Worstall notes that the NBA draft is this week, the same week there was a debate over the Confederate flag. He asks: "how much is the draft an auction of young men?" I wouldn't call any sports draft an auction, but players are (well-paid) slaves for their first years, with almost no say in where they are allowed to work. 2016 watch (The Donald edition) Hollywood Reporter: "Donald Trump Campaign Offered Actors $50 to Cheer for Him at Presidential Announcement." Of course he did. Friday, June 26, 2015
Canadian politics: 'scent of change' Scott Reid, a former Paul Martin speechwriter, says that few strategists know what is happening in politics, and those who think they do are the stupid ones (he could also be talking about pundits). The ones who aren't stupid are terrified, he says. All that is true, but that's not the important takeaway from Reid's column. Whether or not the NDP surge is true or sustainable is beside the point, what matters is "the scent of change has reached the public’s nostrils," and "that’s never good for the incumbent." Reid predicts that the change vote will get behind one alternative, so what is terrifying for the Tories is the desire for change and what terrifies each of the opposition parties is that it will be the other party that eventually benefits from this desire for change. Even if none of this comes to pass, it should terrify people whose livelihood depends on their parties being in power and or relevant. There is still a wide range of possible electoral outcomes (although smallish range of likely outcomes) which will affect not just who governs for the next 2-4 years but the everlasting political landscape. Me in the Toronto Sun (sort of) I've written columns that have appeared in every large Canadian daily except the Vancouver Province and Toronto Sun. I'm in the Sun today, sort of. Michael Taube, former speechwriter to Stephen Harper, mentions my book The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau, in his column, "Trudeau still sits at kiddie table": How does this make the world safer, exactly? It doesn’t. Then again, we shouldn’t be surprised by Trudeau’s lack of political foresight on these issues - and others.In Paul Tuns’s excellent new book, The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau (Freedom Press Canada), he wrote, “For more than two years, Justin Trudeau has dazzled Canadians with his charm, but hidden his agenda. For nearly two years, the Trudeau Liberals led almost every poll, but once he began making substantive policy pronouncements – on fighting ISIS, on domestic anti-terrorism, on taxes and spending – his support fell.”Even in a country with left-leaning political traditions like Canada, weakness can be identified at a moment’s notice. Thursday, June 25, 2015
LISPOP projections and betting predictions The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy projected (on June 9) that the Conservatives will win 124 seats, the NDP 108, and the Liberals 102 (the BQ and presumably Green will combine for 4). They also project the Liberals winning two seats in Alberta and NDP winning five in the province. They also have Ontario fairly close, with the Tories winning 54 seats and Liberals 47. I will bet anyone from LISPOP $100 on each of these, with my predictions stated below. 1) All three major parties will not win more than 100 seats.2) The Liberals and NDP will not win seven (or more) seats in Alberta.3) The Liberals will not win 47 (or more) seats in Ontario with the Conservatives winning more than 50. If you want to bet, send me a message on Twitter (@ptuns) or email me. The Dauphin I received my shipment of The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau this morning. A friend said it's like I'm showing off a new baby in the office. I'll be talking about Justin Trudeau and my book with Andrew Lawton from 2-2:30 this afternoon on AM980 in London, Ont. You can listen to it live or access it later in the archive at the link. I just wish that Justin Trudeau had said or done something ridiculous this week that we could talk about. I'm with the Rebel Media's Marissa Semkiw who says that if Justin Trudeau is a pacifist, he should just admit it. Tasha Kheiriddin has a column in the National Post about Junior talking up policy in the summer when few people are paying attention. Sounds dumb, but that might be part of the plan: "Perhaps he wants to talk policy now, precisely because he doesn't want people to pay close attention to his ideas, he just wants them to acknowledge that he has some." That's what I would have advised if I had any leader's ear, but but my guess is that JT and Gerald Butts confuse an adoring Parliamentary Press Gallery with an adoring public, and they think that voters are eating up Liberal Party policy announcements. 2016 watch (Questions HRC will not answer edition) George Will poses numerous (uncomfortable) questions for Hillary Clinton, all of which deserve answers. On economic policy, Will asks: In this month’s Wisconsin Democratic convention straw poll, you defeated Bernie Sanders 49 percent to 41 percent. Sanders says he is a “socialist.” Do you have fundamental differences with him? If not, are you a socialist? He does not think a 90 percent top income-tax rate is too high. Do you? He says “almost all of” America’s wealth “rests in the hands of a handful of billionaires.” Forbes magazine says the combined net worth of America’s 536 billionaires is $2.566 trillion. Is it a grave problem that the 536 have 3 percent of America’s $84.9 trillion wealth? Is it deplorable that the Waltons became a family of billionaires by creating Wal-Mart, America’s largest private-sector employer? Do you regret that Apple products made Steve Jobs a billionaire? Are any of your however many phones iPhones? On foreign policy, Will asks: President George W. Bush said that when he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes he saw a “very straightforward and trustworthy” man. You looked into Putin’s regime and saw an opportunity for a cooperative policy “reset.” Were you or Bush more mistaken? Rand Paul: better than Reagan Stephen Moore in Investor's Business Daily on Senator Rand Paul's proposed tax reform: Overnight, Rand Paul changed the dynamics of the Republican presidential race when he released his "Fair and Flat" tax plan a week ago.As he said when he unveiled the plan on video, this is the boldest rewrite of the income tax system in 100 years. Even Ronald Reagan — who dramatically improved the federal tax system — didn't perform such a sweeping cleanup of the tax code.For full disclosure, I spent the last several months helping design this plan with Sen. Paul — so I'm biased. But there is no doubt that this plan, which reduces income tax rates from as high as 40% and business taxes from 35% down to a flat 14.5%, can only be described as explosively pro-growth and pro-jobs.The 14.5% tax would apply to wages, salaries, capital gains, rents and dividend income. It eliminates the estate tax, telephone taxes, Internet taxes, gift taxes and all customs and duties.This plan would take America from being one of the nations with the highest income tax rates in the world to having one of the lowest. It would suck capital and jobs from the rest of the world almost immediately to these shores. Stop caring about inequality And start caring about value and well-being. Companies and their owners get rich by enriching our lives, both financially and otherwise. Andy Kessler explains in the Wall Street Journal: A company’s profits are the minimum value of the work it does for you and for society. Google, to take another example, generates huge profits. CEO Larry Page has an estimated net worth of $30 billion. But Google offers you a valuable service, and society benefits to the tune of trillions, yes trillions, of dollars in commerce that happens thanks to Google searches, mail and maps. Similarly, an iPhone 6 is worth a heck of a lot more than $600; you can hail a car, trade stocks, call your mom, all without being chained to a desk.Everyone should stop focusing on an entrepreneur’s wealth and instead focus on the value the customers gained from his products. I can’t dig for oil, let alone frack, but I am happy to pay Exxon a premium for my high-test gas. Collectively, we are richer because of Exxon. So inequality is not a bug of capitalism; it’s a feature. Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Flags and other symbols of Slate: "A Long List of Other Ways Southern States Officially Endorse the Confederacy." Cochrane on Greece The "grumpy economist" John Cochrane, of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, has an excellent post that includes this important detail, lost on many observers but obvious when stated clearly: The argument is not about "lending" to Greece, i.e. covering this year's primary surplus. The argument is whether the IMF, ECB, and rest of Europe will lend Greece money to... pay back the IMF, ECB, and the rest of Europe. This is a roll over negotiation, not a lending negotiation.The loans were not intended to be paid back now. The loans were intended to go on for decades. But with conditions. The negotiation is about enforcing or modifying the conditions for a roll-over.Rolling over short term debt with periodic reviews is a nice incentive mechanism. Foreign policy should try it. Those three paragraphs are the prism through which you must view each new round of "lending" talks between/among Greece and whoever. Cochrane also has a terrific analogy for those who think that what Greece needs now is higher taxes; the south European nation does not need more government revenue, it needs to attract investment to encourage real and lasting economic growth. Taxes are counter-productive. Lastly (among the half dozen points Cochrane makes), "Greece needs an independent, national, banking system about as much as Ohio or Louisiana do." I'm agnostic on this issue, but Cochrane makes a strong case in his brief comments. Crap. Now I have to read a golf book Joe Posnanski's new book is The Secret of Golf: The Story of Tom Watson and Jack Nicklaus. I probably haven't a book about golf since university* but everything the Pos writes about sports is pure wonderful. * That doesn't seem correct, but I can't recall reading about the sport since Harvey Penick's many books about golf. I don't watch the NHL anymore ... So I probably shouldn't care how it governs itself, but an organization that is constantly changing its overtime rules -- pro hockey is reportedly headed for 3-on-3 OT -- is fucking around with its rules for the sake of change. Nashville Predators general manager David Poile admits as much: "It’s another tweak to the game that could be very fan friendly." Nina Simone The Wall Street Journal: Friday will mark the premiere, on Netflix, of “What Happened, Miss Simone?”—a stirring, often heartbreaking documentary directed by Liz Garbus that reveals why Simone remains much admired, and not only for her music.Simone’s path to international acclaim was not an easy one. Born Eunice Waymon in Tryon, N.C., Simone studied classical piano from an early age, which isolated her from childhood friends. Though she had given recitals since age 12, she was denied entry to the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia; she believed the rejection was due to her race. She attended the Juilliard School of Music, but when her money ran low, she took a gig singing and playing piano in an Atlantic City bar. Working in clubs at times from midnight to 7 a.m., she changed her name to Nina Simone so her mother, a Methodist minister, wouldn’t find out.As Ms. Garbus’s documentary reveals through performance clips and interviews, Simone channeled her loneliness and resentment into her art, working at a furious pace and mixing blues, folk, gospel and jazz into an emphatic style that balanced beauty and authority, her voice and the piano at its earthy, stately core. “Little Girl Blue,” her debut album released in 1958, included a swinging “My Baby Just Cares for Me” that Chanel used in a commercial some 30 years later, sparking a Simone revival. For too many people, Simone is now known only as the music in one scene from the Thomas Crown Affair and the opening of a Flo Rida song. You can't just take old regulations and impose them on new technologies The Register reports: A regulator in Germany has ruled that websites must only offer downloads of sexually explicit ebooks between 10pm and 6am.Essentially, the euro nation’s Youth Protection Authority has said 2002-era rules on protecting kids from blue movies on TV now cover digital books, publishing trade mag Boersenblatt reports. Telly stations in Germany can only broadcast X-rated stuff between 10pm and 6am; that now applies to raunchy ebook downloads, too, weirdly enough ..."Given the prevalence of adult content on websites outside of Germany, trying to control access on sites in Germany is just nuts. Even King Canute knew that he could not hold back the tide, but apparently German regulators lack that level of common sense." It's not just volume; it's ubiquity. (HT: Tim Worstall) Tuesday, June 23, 2015
FCC to regulate telemarketers & polling companies Stephanie Slade of Hit & Run reports that the Federal Communications Commission may regulate unwanted advertising and political recordings, which could affect the polling industry. Nate Silver and other pundits are upset. Reason's subhead: "Pollsters like Nate Silver are understandably freaked out, but it's not the government's job to protect their business model." (Un)happy tenth anniversary Donald Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek: On this tenth anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London – a detestable monument both to “Progressives'” contempt for the rights of ordinary people and to conservatives’ mindless habit of demanding judicial restraint – I offer here some links specially selected for this anniversary of that decision. Lots of great links. My two cents. One of my deepest public policy hopes is that Kelo will be looked at in the same way some day as we now look back at Dred Scott. A reminder that Donald Trump supports Kelo. Free-range parenting meets philosophy Steven Horwitz of the St. Lawrence University (and the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog) has a new working paper, "Cooperation Over Coercion: the Importance of Unsupervised Childhood Play for Democracy and Liberalism." The abstract begins: Unsupervised childhood play is how children learn the sort of informal rule-making and rule-enforcing that is so critical to a liberal society’s attempt to minimize coercion. It is a key way that children learn the skills necessary to engage in social cooperation in all kinds of social spaces within the market and, especially, outside of it. We learn how to problem solve in these ways without the need to invoke violence or some sort of external threat, which enables us as adults to cooperate peacefully in intimate groups as well as within what Hayek called the Great Society. Horowitz explains: The processes at work in enabling free play to continue parallel those identified by Elinor Ostrom in her studies of community-driven responses to common property resource problems: rules have to be developed and behavior has to monitored and sanctioned. One of the most powerful ways to deal with rule transgressions in emergent orders is through exit because the continuation of the game or institution requires the continued consent of the players. If exit causes the game, or the social institution, to collapse, the participants have strong incentives to make sure that all players think the rules are fair and that they are being followed. In rules imposed from above, such as in structured play, the need for consent to the rules is absent and exit becomes a much weaker form of sanction. As a result, participants are less likely to take the desires of others into account because ignoring them does not lead to cessation of the activity. Overseeing and planning every second of our children's lives decreases their ability to build spontaneous order in their peer group. Whether or not this weakens democracy over time is up for debate, but Horowitz is probably correct to say that coddled children are less capable than free-range kids in adjudicating their own disagreements. It makes some sense that future citizens robbed of these opportunities might be more dependent on the state as grown-ups. Horowitz also talks about the trade-off between safety and reward, noting: Parenting should be about ensuring that children are exposed to a profit and loss system of maturation. When kids get it right, they should reap the benefits, but when they mess up, they should also pay the price. If we continue to grant children greater freedoms but continually prevent them from experiencing the psychological equivalent of losses, we will have denied them a crucial part of the learning process and, in so doing, potentially weakened their ability to navigate effectively in the liberal order. We should want our children to be able to manage risks, that is to be responsible risk-takers. Parents denying their kids such lessons are doing a disservice to both their progeny and society. Sowell on HRC Thomas Sowell on Democratic favourite Hillary Clinton: There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her.What is even more painful is that none of that matters politically. Many people simply want "a woman" to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified.What is Hillary's history? In the most important job she has ever held — secretary of state — American foreign policy has had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters. Regressive regulations Arnold Kling briefly addresses the new Brink Lindsey paper on deregulation (which I will need to read later this week), and says that "regressive regulations" such as land-use restrictions, occupational licensing, and copyright and patent law, can be explained by the concentration of political power: crony capitalism where powerful vested interests have disproportionate influence. Remember this: so-called progressives support policies that enrich and empower the already well-to-do. Comparative advantage (not zero sum) is the key to understand benefits of trade Fortune's Roger Lowenstein has a good article on the under-appreciated economist David Ricardo and the under-appreciated theory of comparative advantage: Ricardo’s “difficult idea,” which he illustrated with the example of trade in cloth and wine between Portugal and England, went a step beyond Smith, who was also a free-trade proponent. For one thing, Ricardo’s more theoretical approach anticipated the mathematical formulae of modern economists.Moreover, he flushed out the theory of comparative advantage, which leads to the surprising conclusion that trade distills benefits to, say, both England and Portugal even if one country (let’s say Portugal) is more productive at making both cloth and wine. The reason is that Portugal is likely to have a greater comparative advantage in one of these products.To add a current spin to the classic textbook illustration, even if LeBron James can cut his grass more quickly than the boy next door, he is better off hiring his neighbor to mow the lawn because James has a greater comparative advantage playing basketball. Cutting the grass would waste his time. Krugman has observed that comparative advantage is closely related to the notion of specialization: since it requires great effort to become either a professional athlete or a brain surgeon, the surgeon and the athlete are better off trading skills than trying to master each. It's a longish essay and it deserves to be read by both advocates and opponents of free trade. Monday, June 22, 2015
Is recycling in America worth it anymore? Tyler Cowen links to a Washington Post article examining the decreasing profits from recycling -- and in many places, money-losing proposition -- and the myriad reasons for that decline. A big reason is that there is too much stuff being put in the recycling box that 1) does not belong there, 2) isn't being broken down properly, and 3) isn't being sort properly. This is the natural consequence of larger blue bins, which households use as a second garbage receptacle. Globalization and lower prices for recycled raw material (paper and glass) mean that municipalities must subsidize their and private recycling programs. Cowen adds that recycling hasn't scaled as expected. The mentally ill and balancing individual and community rights National Review's Molly Powell reports from a recent Treatment Advocacy Center conference in support of the proposed Helping Families In Mental Health Crisis Act: Joe Bruce has told his story a number of times, including before Congress, but the brute facts bear repeating: His schizophrenic son was discharged from the psychiatric hospital against the advice and repeated pleas from the family, who warned doctors that they did not feel safe and that their son needed ongoing treatment, including supervision and medication. The psychiatrist, social workers, and “patient advocates” disagreed, believing that they knew better than the family. William Bruce was released, put on a bus, and given enough money to pay for a hotel room for two weeks. Two months later, he returned home and murdered his mother with a hatchet. Naturally, no one on William Bruce’s treatment team — all of whom were government employees — was held accountable for their fatal error in judgment.By chance, one of William Bruce’s psychiatrists happened to treat my own brother, also severely schizophrenic, a few years later. This psychiatrist advocated before a judge that my brother be released from the state-ordered guardianship under which he had been living, and under which his condition had markedly improved. My family pleaded and nearly begged the psychiatrist, arguing that more than four decades of experience had shown us that without ongoing supervision and consistent medication, my brother would soon stop taking medication and head quickly downhill. We had seen it happen dozens upon dozens of times, watched as he cycled between psych wards and jail, unable to hold a job or keep an apartment for long. More than once he had come very close to dying, sometimes endangering others, as when he led police on a high-speed car chase on a crowded coastal route. Our arguments fell on deaf ears. My brother was judged by this psychiatrist — who had so grievously misjudged William Bruce — as ready to be “free.” He was competent, the psychiatrist said, to make decisions in his own best interest. He had a “good understanding” of his illness, we were assured. We simply did not appreciate how “smart” he was, one young social worker (who had never seen my brother in a psychotic state) scolded us sternly.Shortly after being released from the guardianship, my brother stopped taking his medication (as is the pattern with many schizophrenics). Now that he was “free,” no one could require him to take his pills. He then went missing — in northern New England, in an exceptionally brutal cold snap. By the time the police found him, hundred of miles north from where he lived, his thinking was so disordered and he was so severely delusional that he was unable to form words in English. What followed was more than a year of mandated hospitalization and treatment on the highest-security locked ward of a psychiatric facility — quite the opposite of the “freedom” and “dignity” the psychiatrist and “patient advocates” had so confidently touted. It's not easy figuring out the right balance of individual rights for the severely mentally ill and the rights of families and community to both protect themselves and care for the sick and vulnerable. I'm not comfortable with the paternalism of forced medication and hospitalization. But as Powell suggests, what freedom and dignity is there in the most extreme cases when ideological advocates screw up? Stories such as the Bruce and Powell families -- and there are thousands of similar stories -- should give civil libertarians (myself included) pause. More evidence Justin Trudeau is an idiot I'm not talking about the lame Global TV interview on the weekend. No, it's Justin Trudeau's latest tweet: "Government has no place in the labs of scientists. #RealChange" What about government funding? What about occupational health and safety regulations? If Junior wants to get rid of those, I'll support him on that. 2016 watch (The Donald edition) Jeff Jacoby had a great column in the Boston Globe on the weekend on the Donald Trump clown show in which he wonders why The Donald is running for the Republicans: He has touted a single-payer health care system on the Canadian model. He has advocated a wealth tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth of at least $10 million. He has called for a 25 percent tariff on all Chinese exports. He has praised the Supreme Court's notorious Kelo decision, which upheld the power of the state to condemn private homes through eminent domain, so it can turn the land over to influential developers — like Trump.With such a government-enlarging, tax-raising, trade-restricting outlook, one might have expected Trump to be more comfortable as a champion of the Democratic Party. Sure enough, he has been a major backer of Democratic candidates, pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into Democratic campaigns over the years. In the 2006 election cycle, for example, Trump donated heavily to Democratic committees focused on regaining control of Congress — an effort that culminated with Harry Reid becoming Senate majority leader and Nancy Pelosi rising to speaker of the House.Trump isn't a conservative, he isn't a Republican, and he isn't a presidential candidate. He is a political punch line looking for a joke. 4% economic growth Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Glenn Hubbard and Kevin Warsh say that substantial tax and regulatory reform are needed to return to 4% growth rates. While those policies are necessary to grow the economy at levels more robust than the Obama recovery has seen (under 2%), conservatives need to grasp the fact that 4% is an unlikely goal. We should also beware economic lessons of history considering that 1970s America was very different than the globalized, high technology America of today. It should also be pointed out that the column is pure rhetoric, with no specific policy reform, just general principles of a pro-growth agenda: Fundamental tax reform that is directed at increasing the incentives for work and driving investment in productive assets. Real regulatory reform that firmly and consistently recognizes, measures and balances economic benefits and costs—and no longer protects incumbent firms from disruptive new competitors. Tax and regulatory reform can make the United States the preferred destination for work and investment.Trade policies must continue to break down non-tariff barriers to open global markets. Education policy must be geared toward empowering schools to put students and the skills they need above entrenched interests. And support for training can foster investment in skills over time. Putting students above entrenched interests or tax reform that incentivizes work are goals, not policies. Sunday, June 21, 2015
After two years of talking pot, abortion and middle class ... Justin Trudeau thinks electoral reform will be a big issue in the forthcoming federal election campaign. We'll see. Good economics = mythbusting Donald Boudreaux has an excellent post on the faulty thinking that economic thinking disproves. These are the two most important: The myth that the only, or even the main, costs that people endure in a modern economy are costs expressed in money prices. And: The myth that government officials generally have, relative to actors in private-property markets, superior incentives and knowledge to act to promote widespread economic prosperity. Unfortunately, proven wrong does not mean these myths are no longer widely believed. Greece's socialist government and Europe George Will has a good column on Greece and the Eurozone. He writes about the new government of Alexis Tsipras: How could one humiliate a nation that chooses governments committed to Rumpelstiltskin economics, the belief that the straw of government largesse can be spun into the gold of national wealth? Tsipras’s approach to mollifying those who hold his nation’s fate in their hands is to say they must respect his “mandate” to resist them. He thinks Greek voters, by making delusional promises to themselves, obligate other European taxpayers to fund them. Tsipras, who says the creditors are “pillaging” Greece, is trying to pillage his local governments, which are resisting his extralegal demands that they send him their cash reserves ...The EU has a flag no one salutes, an anthem no one sings, a president no one can name, a parliament whose powers subtract from those of national legislatures, a bureaucracy no one admires or controls, and rules of fiscal rectitude that no member is penalized for ignoring. It does, however, have in Greece a member whose difficulties are wonderfully didactic.It cannot be said too often: There cannot be too many socialist smashups. The best of these punish reckless creditors whose lending enables socialists to live, for a while, off other people’s money. The world, which owes much to ancient Athens’s legacy, including the idea of democracy, is indebted to today’s Athens for the reminder that reality does not respect a democracy’s delusions. Saturday, June 20, 2015
Getting the incentives right to quit smoking David Gratzer looks at a study that examined incentives to get people to stop smoking using either a reward and deposit system (the latter involved losing the deposit) that found the latter worked much better. There were also individual and group (collaborative or competitive) systems. Overall, deposit systems work better because people are generally loss-averse. Gratzer concludes there is good and bad news out of the study but it still suggests both employer and government policy implications about how to nudge people to butt out. Gratzer concludes, "In the end, I wonder though if we have simply reached the limits of behavioural economics." Heresy! The study, as Cass Sunstein says in an accompanying editorial, that not only are there policy implications to which nudges work the best, but that the results mean that more research with different incentive structures are needed to determine optimal policies. Marc and Jodie Emery and politics The Toronto Star: "The ‘Princess’ and ‘Prince of Pot’ aren’t done politicking." The paper reports of Marc Emery: Emery has faith that in the next two to five years, marijuana will be made legal across North America. But to help the process along, he is going on a tour in the months leading up to the election to convince marijuana smokers to vote out Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Marc Emery has been a candidate before and Jodie considered running for the Liberals before the Green Light Committee gave her the red light. The Prince and Princess of Pot get two mentions in my book, The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau. From the chapter "Justin Trudeau on Pot" I note that after the media took notice of Junior's enthusiasm for liberalizing Canada's pot laws: Not surprisingly, he has attracted enthusiasts for the cause of drug liberalization.Marc Emery is known as the Prince of Pot. He once owned a used bookstore in London, Ont., that sold banned books and music (such as the misogynistic rappers Two Live Crew) and he promoted the idea of liberty without limits. He later moved to British Columbia where he focused on promoting marijuana decriminalization, but also went to so far as to sell marijuana seeds through the internet. His activism and commercial activity earned him not only the nickname the Prince of Pot, but also a jail term in the United States. Marc Emery claimed to have smoked weed with the Dauphin “four or five times” back in 2003 when Trudeau lived in British Columbia, but later clarified that he meant “I have only smoked pot one occasion with Justin Trudeau. The ‘four or five times’ is four or five times that evening,” he said once a video of an Emery speech was noticed on the internet.While Emery served time in an American prison, his wife, Jodie, remained in Canada to continue her husband’s pro-pot crusade. In the summer of 2014, Jodie Emery, nicknamed the Cannabis Queen, said that not only was she seeking the Liberal nomination in Vancouver East, but suggested that the Liberal Party and perhaps Trudeau’s own operatives had approached her to do so. Trudeau denied the claim and initially did not prevent the notable pot decriminalization activist from running. He said Jodie Emery would be treated like every other candidate seeking a Liberal nomination. He told Macleans’s, "She’s got a process to go through. There’ll be a green-light process to look into her and, ultimately, it will be Liberals in the riding who will decide whether they want her as a candidate. That’s the way things are set up. There are a lot of people who are passionate about one issue or another who feel they want to move forward by stepping toward politics. In general, that’s a good thing." Of course, people who are passionate about the issue of abortion need not apply for the Liberal nomination, but making pot legal is not a disqualifying issue for Trudeau.In January 2015, the Green Light Committee red-lighted her nomination, preventing Jodie Emery from running for the Liberal nomination. Sure, Jodie Emery was eventually not allowed to run, but Trudeau did not automatically ban the so-called Princess of Pot from running; indeed, he may have actively encouraged the controversial potential candidate to seek the nomination. In my chapter on Open Nominations I look at Jodie Emery's red light from the party. In the interest of full disclosure I should report that in high school I brought Emery, then owner of London, Ont.'s City Lights Bookstore, one of the best used bookstores in the country, to our model United Nations assembly to talk about liberty. Emery then sold banned books and albums in his store, and his pro-freedom message was something I and another conservative member of our UN club thought other students should hear. Teachers were not impressed. While I chatted with Emery several times at his bookstore, I have never smoked pot with him. The genesis of e-cigs At the Spectator, Matt Ridley has a good article on Hon Lik and the invention of e-cigarettes, which the inventor created to help people cease smoking. E-cigs aren't perfect but they are better than smoking tobacco. Ditching Hamilton Richard Brookhiser writes in the Wall Street Journal: The first report was that the Treasury Department was planning to take Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill, replaced by an as-yet-unnamed woman. Later stories suggested that his image won’t entirely disappear from the bill when the change is made in 2020. Either way, the man who made our money is losing his place on it. Brookhiser, author of a very good 1999 biography of Hamilton, examines Hamilton's legacy, including the Central Bank: Hamilton’s next move was to establish a central bank—the Bank of the United States. It would handle the federal government’s assets. But it would also be a private bank, selling stock to investors and making loans to ordinary customers. Hamilton saw it as a way of both increasing and regulating the money supply—a boon to a cash-poor economy. Hamilton’s Federalist collaborator, James Madison, thought the bank was illegal—the Constitution mentioned no such thing. Hamilton argued that a bank was necessary to fulfill a function the Constitution did mention—borrowing money on the credit of the United States—therefore it was an implied power. President Washington and Congress agreed.Central banks were a new thing in the world. At the end of the 17th century, first Holland, then England, had discovered that regular interest payments, managed by a bank, could turn debt into credit. Early in the 18th century, France tried following suit but pulled back after a credit bubble burst. Under Hamilton the U.S. became the third country to enter this new financial field. The world took note. When he stepped down as Treasury secretary in 1795, American debt was trading in Europe at 110% of face value. Money men were paying a premium to hold it; Hamilton had made it as good as gold.None of this had to happen. Most revolutionary governments over the past two centuries have been chaotic, dishonest and poor. The U.S. might have gone that route. We would then speak, not of banana republics, but of maple or pine republics—and we would have been the first one. Seven years ago, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, author of Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for America Today, accused Hamilton of being anti-American, anti-Constution, and a founder of U.S.-style crony capitalism, all of which was summarized in his essay at Mises Daily. It is a very different take on this founding father than Brookhiser's. For better or worse, as George Will has said, Americans talk the language of Jefferson, but they live in Hamilton's country. It would be a shame if Americans, who already suffer historical amnesia, were to forget another one of their most consequential founders. Jay Cost also has a good piece at The Weekly Standard, making the case for Hamilton, and against Andrew Jackson, and it, too, is worth a read. Perhaps the folks at the Treasury need to read it, for as Cost says, "It is embarrassing that the Treasury Department, of all agencies, needs a recap of why Hamilton is so essential." Cost provides a one paragraph summary of Hamilton's indispensable legacy, but also the one-paragraph case against Jackson: If, for the sake of diversity, the Obama Administration is looking to demote a current figure on the currency, there is an obvious choice: Andrew Jackson, currently on the $20 bill. In fact, Jackson should be removed altogether. If Hamilton was ahead of his time, then Jackson was behind his. His invasion of Florida was of dubious legality. He held the people of New Orleans under martial law for weeks after the Treaty of Ghent became known. As president he broke the law when and as it suited his interests; the Senate rightly censured him for illegally removing deposits from the Second Bank of the United States. Whereas Hamilton secured the nation’s public finances, Jackson, who was largely ignorant of these matters even by the standards of his day, set them back a half century, and in the process he paid off his political cronies. He established the spoils system, which would debauch public administration for a half century. Worst of all, Jackson was cruel and duplicitous in his dealings with the Native Americans. I would favour replacing Jackson with a trio of Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, and Sam Walton. And eventually adding Bill Gates. The pork fountain guts Canadian division of responsibilities At the Megaphone, Richard Anderson says that Ottawa spending dough on municipal projects is wrong: "When the federal government muscles in on the turf of municipal governments they do more than buy votes, they weaken one of the key elements in the success of Canada: Federalism." The Tories are bad, but the other two parties would be worse: It's true enough, and easy enough to point out, that the Liberals and NDP would be far, far worse. Instead of sewer lines our tax dollars would be spent on unionized trans-gendered community centres. At least with the Tories you're getting pork that feeds the great majority of the people. Yet whoever is in power it seems that our constitutional order is getting taken for a ride. For the sake of better government and more accountability, Ottawa needs to leave attending to water drains and nursing homes to local governments. Conservatives should know this even if Liberals and the NDP don't. In theory, at least, Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government and enumerated powers. Unfortunately, the temptation of vote-buying is too great. Friday, June 19, 2015
'Feds can compel magazines and websites to cough up user information about obviously non-threatening trolls, while barring them from even acknowledging it' Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch, editors of Reason.com and Reason magazine respectively, report: For the past two weeks, Reason, a magazine dedicated to "Free Minds and Free Markets," has been barred by an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from speaking publicly about a grand jury subpoena that court sent to Reason.com.The subpoena demanded the records of six people who left hyperbolic comments at the website about the federal judge who oversaw the controversial conviction of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Shortly after the subpoena was issued, the government issued a gag order prohibiting Reason not only from discussing the matter but even acknowledging the existence of the subpoena or the gag order itself. As a wide variety of media outlets have noted, such actions on the part of the government are not only fundamentally misguided and misdirected, they have a tangible chilling effect on free expression by commenters and publications alike.Yesterday, after preparing an extensive legal brief, Reason asked the US Attorney's Office to join with it in asking that the gag order - now moot and clearly an unconstitutional prior restraint - be lifted. This morning, the US Attorney's Office asked the Court to vacate the order, which it did. We are free to tell the story for the first time.On May 31, Nick Gillespie published a post at Reason.com's Hit & Run blog discussing Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht's "haunting sentencing letter" to District Court Judge Katherine Forrest, and the judge's harsh response. Gillespie noted that Forrest "more than threw the book" at Ulbricht by giving him a life sentence, which was a punishment "beyond even what prosecutors...asked for."In the comments section of the post, six readers published reactions that drew the investigative ire of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In a federal grand jury subpoena dated June 2, the U.S. District Court commanded Reason.com to turn over "any and all identifying information" we had about the individuals posting those comments.This is the first time Reason.com has received such a subpoena from any arm of government. It is a very long post by Gillespie and Welch detailing their (thankfully brief) legal battle and why they fought it. Fortunately, they won. How many publications have lost their battles and haven't reported their travails? My biggest pet peeve Vic Fedeli tweets: "With Mayor @Peter_McIsaac at the 1st Annual Pig 'n Pie Fest in Powassan." I don't think there is a rule anywhere about this, but events should have a track record of actually happening before "annual" becomes part of title. Pope Francis & Lorrie Goldstein against carbon credits Toronto Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein applauds Pope Francis for opposing the fraudulent carbon credit schemes that are open to not only crony capitalism but outright corruption. Under-rated Seinfeld episodes The Wall Street Journal rates the "top 10 under-rated Seinfeld episodes." I fully endorse "Bizarro Jerry" as one of the best Seinfeld episodes, period. I have been re-watching seasons 6-8 recently and the show is better than I remember. The problem -- and attraction -- of normative sociology Alex Tabarrok summarizes a new Joseph Heath essay, saying Heath offers "four reasons why people are attracted to normative sociology 1) they want to have a causal lever so they blame what they think they can change 2) they don’t want to blame or appear to blaming the victim so they avoid some explanations in favor of others 3) confusing correlation and causation 4) a metaphysical desire for bad things to have big and bad effects." The comments to Heath's post are worth reading (as is Heath's piece itself), but John Forrest's should be highlighted: I don’t disagree that there is “a great deal of normative sociology in the quantitative world”, and it seems right to say that in a way those mistakes will be less widely recognized due to the math issue. But I still think it’s plausible that quantitative mistakes of this kind are both less prevalent and easier to debunk.The reason is that precisely because quantitative research requires a highly specialized skill set, the people who conduct that research are more likely to have a stake in upholding the integrity of their methodologies over-and-above their commitment to producing results that are preferred on normative grounds.There is a recent example of this in political science. A widely-publicized story purporting to show that opposition to gay marriage could be changed through brief conversations with a gay person was debunked on methodological grounds. However, the researchers who debunked the study are themselves very pro-gay marriage (one is gay himself), so they really liked the original study on normative grounds. But they also have an over-riding commitment to the integrity of the methodologies involved. I think that one concern with qualitative methods is that their is no such over-riding commitment; in fact, I’m pretty sure that some qualitative scholars choose their methods precisely because those methods are associated with certain normative commitments.So, for those reasons, I would still be more confident in the ability of quantitative research to check its own biases. The coming Tory pivot John Ibbitson in the Globe and Mail: Yet the Conservatives confront a difficult choice: Should they continue their attacks on Justin Trudeau, in an effort to further suppress the Liberal vote? Or should they turn their guns on Mr. Mulcair?In answer, expect the Conservatives to employ a tactic traditionally used by the NDP. Mr. Harper will say that Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau are indistinguishable, taxers-and-spenders who can’t be trusted on either the economy or national security. Dippers once loved to lump the Liberals and Conservatives together – Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Now it’s a Tory trope.While the Conservatives are spooked by the rise of the NDP, they aren’t panicked, is how one person close to the party described the situation. The most difficult decision to be made by the strategists of any party between now and election day is when will the Conservatives turn their attacks toward the NDP. The timing of this decision could determine the election outcome: the attacks might come early to bring down the Dippers benefiting the Liberals who become the alternative to the Tories around which left-of-centre voters coalesce, or they might come too late after left-of-centre opinion has already congealed around the NDP. Even if the Tories are strong enough to win re-election, the timing of the decision could decide whether it will be a minority or majority government as well as the composition of the opposition. Conrad Black & the Dauphin The Toronto Star reports that Conrad Black has turned his back on the Harper Conservatives (mostly due to their law-and-order stance) and says the Liberals deserve a real look: "Justin is underestimated, he deserves a serious look." And Black says that the NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, is not as crazy left-wing as his predecessors. For those interested in a "serious look" at Justin Trudeau can buy my book The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau in paperback or ebook. Martian biochemistry and the genesis of life on Earth Science writer Tim Folger in Nautilus: "Why Discovering Martians Could Be Disappointing." Folger says: The distinction, McKay tells me, is a crucial one. If we discover living things elsewhere in our solar system, for example, and they turn out to have a biochemistry similar to our own—with DNA, and familiar proteins, say—then we would still have no way to assess whether life in the universe is rare or common. Mars might have infected Earth with life, or vice versa. In either case Mars and Earth could be flukes, exceptional cases in an otherwise sterile cosmos.If instead we find a true second genesis, it would be evidence for a fecund universe where life is the norm. The story is interesting if you like this kind of thing: basically there are some researchers who think that bacteria traveled on a meteorite from Mars to Earth, bringing life to this planet. At this point the theory is highly speculative because the timelines of which we know do not remotely match the timelines for life on Earth. The possibility is intriguing, but there is scant evidence for it, at this point. Thursday, June 18, 2015
Facts about Riker's DNAinfo reports: The number of inmates at Riker's Island has fallen below 10,000 for the first time in decades, according to the Department of Corrections.The jail's average daily population is currently in the 9,000 range, said DOC spokesman Jeff Jacomowitz, compared to just above 14,000 in 2007, according to a Board of Corrections report. The numbers are down from about 21,000 in 1990.The city's jail population is about two-thirds pretrial detainees, according to the city's Independent Budget Office. Almost 18 percent of the Rikers inmates are there for drug offenses, and hundreds — the fourth-largest group, using DOC's categories — are there for parole violations and other "warrants and holds." ... Approximately 40 percent of those housed at Rikers have a psychiatric diagnosis, of which about a third exhibit major psychotic illness, according to a 2013 report. The reason for the decline are New York City initiatives to deal with pretrial backlogs and diverting people with mental health or addiction issues from the jail. Thoughts on the papal encyclical on climate change First reading is both discomforting in parts and reassuring in others. Laudato Si' will be attacked from Right and embraced by Left, and that is because both misunderstand Pope Francis and this encyclical to some degree, although the political right and religious conservatives have more valid complaints. I must now re-read the document and I will address it at length at The Interim tomorrow. But my initial important impressions: Pope Francis comes out against consumerism, not capitalism; but he also accepts climate change as an official narrative of the Catholic Church; I need to ensure I am understanding it correctly but Laudato Si' also appears to introduce (I think accidentally) a new theology of Man; importantly, Pope Francis insists that human beings are the problem in as much as they sin (consumerism) not that there are too many of us (overpopulation). Black lives matter, but only if they further the 'America is racist' narrative Five Feet of Fury observes: "Nine blacks are killed every weekend in Chicago, but black lives only matter when the killer is white." Trudeau on Pope Francis' leadership Justin Trudeau tweets: "The Pope’s call to action on climate change must be answered strongly & seriously by our government & the entire global community." Of course, the Pope's call to protect the preborn is not only ignored but completely rejected by Junior. I do not need socially conscious anything with my burger George Will mocks McDonald's for attempting to be "more progressive around our social purpose in order to deepen our relationships with communities on the issues that matter to them." Fast food restaurants can make the world a better place by offering inexpensive and convenient food. Period. A better burger will go further with customers than fashionable causes. Kevin D. Williamson on the clown show that is Donald Trump National Review's Kevin D. Williamson has one of the best pieces of political writing this year, and it's about Donald Trump, who supposedly wants to run for president. (I doubt it.) Trump will be fun to watch as he ramps up the crazy for the campaign trail. Just one excerpt from Williamson: "Trump’s is a fill-in-the-blanks agenda: He claims to have a plan for defeating ISIS, but he cannot say what it is for reasons of operational security for the mission that exists only in his mind." Khanna on patent reform Derek Khanna talks to Reason TV about his new paper, "How to Fix Patents: Economic Liberty Requires Patent Reform." Khanna says that instead of encouraging innovation, the modern patent system slows innovation and hinders economic activity. Noting patents are government-enforced private monopolies, Khanna says: "effectively every week the government says, 'These are all the things that American citizens can't do for about the next 20 years'." It's time to change the patent system to unleash the dynamic energies of entrepreneurs and end the growth-stifling patent trolling that enriches a few litigious individuals at the expense of truly productive individuals and the larger society. This is an actual thing on the Republican website It's a few weeks old but it just came to my attention: "The 5 flavors of Bernie Sanders." Included is "Socialist Swirl: The self-proclaimed socialist would love to give America a taste of Europe." Wednesday, June 17, 2015
I can't believe I hadn't read this already Max Weber's paper "Politics as a Vocation." (HT: John Robson) Trudeau will consider forcing everyone to vote: non-voters must vote in October to stop this As part of Justin Trudeau's "Real Change" -- which is what you'll be left with after he hikes taxes and fees -- he will consider taking away your right not to vote (check page eight under "Making Every Vote Count"). I admit I'm biased. I'm an active non-voter. I haven't voted for a provincial or federal candidate since the 2006 or 2004 election (I voted for the Conservative candidate in order to vote against Ken Dryden), but usually I show up on election day to reject or spoil my ballot (lately I have let my kids draw on it). But as part of our democratic rights, we should be allowed to not vote, to not give a fuck at all about politics. This is probably the healthiest attitude to have about politics, if not government. If politicians want to increase voting, be better politicians. I suppose that's what Junior is doing, but when you read his promises closely, it is more about appearances: there are a lot of "work on" and "work with" rather than promising to deliver results. There is a reason voters are cynical that the people behind the desks may be different but not much changes. Mandatory voting takes away our liberties. Voting may be important but if it is, so too must not voting. It is anti-democratic and a violation of conscience to require people to mark a ballot on which a suitable candidate might not appear. Should a communist be forced to vote for mere socialists? What if there is no pro-life candidate represented by any of the parties, there being no local CHP candidate? Should a black who distrusts whites be forced to choose from a list of candidates that includes only whites? Should a (legitimate anarchist) be required to mark a ballot for a candidate that believes in the state so much they are running for political office? Admittedly, most people who don't vote are not doing so out of principle. But this "fix" will end up violating the consciences of thousands of non-voters. The paradox for those of us who do not vote is that this October 19 we must vote. We must vote to stop Justin Trudeau from even exploring the undemocratic and anti-democratic principle of mandatory voting. I was not likely to vote this federal election because my local Conservative MP is on the wrong side of a litmus test issue for me, and so far there are no minor parties I would consider voting for (CHP, Libertarian). But not anymore. Now I will hold my nose and vote Tory in order to vote against Trudeau's Liberal Party. I do this knowing that my vote is unlikely to affect the results -- it is almost impossible for a single vote to change an election outcome; but it still counts. Every vote counts. They signal support for candidates, leaders, parties, and ideas -- and against other candidates, leaders, parties, and ideas. The possibility of mandatory voting needs to be opposed. Tim Worstall's new book The No Breakfast Fallacy: Why the Club of Rome was wrong about us running out of minerals and metals is a 57-page ebook worth reading. Have Malthusians ever been correct? Disclaimer not enough, student wants 'offensive' graphic novels banned from community college English course 20-year-old Tara Shultz didn't like the fact that four graphic novels in her English course on graphic novels contain nudity, violence, and obscenities. After complaining to administrators at Crafton Hills College, school officials decided that in the future there would be a disclaimer in the course syllabus that some material in the course contains material that some students might find offensive, including sex and torture. Shultz, who took the course not knowing it was a class dedicated to studying graphic novels, says that is a minor victory, but ultimately she doesn't want the offending books taught at all. "I don't want to ban the books or burn them," she insists, just banned from being taught. Charles Brownstein, executive director of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, said "The issue is if an individual is disturbed or offended by speech, that's their right, but the way to handle it is not by restricting it from the rest of the community." Except that the modern academy -- if you want to count community college as part of that species -- does believe in banning and coddling, so Shultz has been very well taught, indeed. |
