Why the Fairness Doctrine is Unfair to the Left

"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 04 March 1801

"So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree."
- From "We Just Disagree" by Billy Dean

The absolute worst laws are passed as a quick response to a crisis. In a heightened sense of urgency, lawmakers are willing to pass some extreme, simplistic solution whose faults become apparent only after the crisis has passed. The 9/11 attacks gave us the PATRIOT act and the TSA, and our civil liberties have suffered ever since. In 2008, the housing bust was addressed with two complex, obscenely expensive and hastily composed programs, the stimulus package and TARP. These programs did not prevent a severe economic downturn, and will be paid for by generations born long after this crisis has passes.

Which brings us to the latest crisis: the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others. The instant analysis of the shooter's motivation was that it was a product of a harsh political environment. This has lead two Democratic representatives, Rep. Jim Clyburn (SC) and Rep. Bob Brady (PA), to propose reinstating the fairness doctrine. This FCC policy, first instated in 1949 and dropped in 1987, required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in way that the FCC board finds to be honest and balanced. Supporters argue that a revived fairness doctrine would keep Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly off the air, resulting in a more civil political discourse.

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and the fairness doctrine will remain dead. The history of this doctrine indicates that it leads to ersatz censorship, and that it is especially unfair to the left. The problem with the fairness doctrine is that FCC officials of the current administration determines what is "honest and balanced" coverage, and inevitably their definition of balance reflects the administrations' point of view. The temptation to abuse this doctrine is hard to resist; Arthur Larson, a Democratic official from the JFK / LBJ years, admitted to using the doctrine to suppress right wing broadcasters. Larson regretted this censorious use of the FCC, especially after Richard Nixon used the fairness doctrine to suppress his critics. Shows such as "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" and the TV documentary "The Selling of the Pentagon" came under FCC scrutiny for their perceived left tilt. The liberal publications of that time (e.g. The Nation or Ramparts) decried the fairness doctrine on free speech grounds.

The democrats may control the FCC for now, but political fortunes can change on a dime. Remember back in 2004, when the Democratic party was given up for dead? In 2008, a mere 4 years later, political pundits declared that the Republicans would be a political minority for at least a generation. Then came the 2010 elections, and the tables turned once again. Who knows which side will control the FCC in 2013? Keep in mind that an FCC with the power to boot Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly off the air also has the power to silence Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Rachel Maddow.

The fairness doctrine unfairly favors the status quo over the agents of change. Liberal support for this doctrine is therefore self defeating. We should not use this crisis to weaken our first amendment protections.

Defending Keith Olbermann and Media Bias

"He would certainly rebuke you if you secretly showed partiality!"
- Job 13:10

"Think of what you're saying.
You can get it wrong and still you think that it's all right.
Think of what I'm saying,
We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night."
- from "We Can Work It Out" by Lennon and McCartney

MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann was recently given a two day suspension for donating money to three democratic congressional campaigns. His NBC contract stipulates that he would not engage in such partisan activities with notifying the president of NBC news, and obtaining this president's approval. NBC requires this of all of their news staff in order to maintain their "journalistic impartiality".

I may be the worst person in the world to defend Olbermann. I find that like all too many cable news hosts, Olbermann frequently goes on sophomoric and tiresome rants. His attacks on Scott Brown, Michelle Malkin, and Bill O'Reilly were so over-the-top that they generated sympathy for his targets.

So why shouldn't NBC take punitive measures against Olbermann for violating his contract? Basically, because this contract requirement of impartiality, even in his off-air activities, makes no sense in the current media world, for at least three reasons.

1. Olbermann does not does not host a show like the NBC nightly news where he is expected to be impartial. He hosts the video equivalent of a newspaper Op-Ed piece, where he is expected to give his opinion. How can he give his opinion and be impartial at the same time?
2. It is questionable whether journalistic impartiality is a realistic goal. A study published in the Journal of Political Economy finds a slant in many 'balanced' news reports, due to the nature of the news business.
   
3. When the national TV market was an oligopoly of three major networks, impartiality was a major concern. But with the explosion of news outlets on TV and the internet, we have a much better way to get both sides of a story. We can watch both a true liberal and a true conservative present their case. This is a vast improvement over having a single new anchor present his or her sincere point of view, and then for balance, present some alternative that he or she does not really believe in.

Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Glenn Beck may all say things that you disagree with. Certainly they have said things that I object to. But their contributions to the public dialog allows viewers to more clearly see issues from both sides of the left-right divide.

Speaking of the left-right divide, I heartily recommend the web site Blogging Heads TV. This site has videos of bloggers from differing sides debate each other over a web cam. You will be pleased to see how polite these bloggers are. They have mastered the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. Another pleasant surprise is how often they come to agreement!

Before leaving, I should point out one point on which I emphatically agree with Keith Olbermann: his brave stance on Anwar al-Awlaki. And for those who would like to take a break from serious discussion, here is a lighter side of Olbermann.

Government Greed

"Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions."
- Luke 12:15"

Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise
It's no surprise
That they're giving none away"
- From "Money" by Roger Waters

In many an economic debate, you will find one participant who feels that all our troubles can be boiled down to one word: greed. You've heard this argument before: greed is what drives the profit motive, the basis of free market economies, and that this dependence on one of the seven deadly sins accounts for all our society's ills, including oil spills, stock market crashes, and lousy "Star Wars" sequels. If I had a dime for every time someone given this one word diagnosis, I'd be, well, a successful capitalist.

This one word critique of free market economics is quite emotionally satisfying, but it does not hold up to scrutiny for a number of reasons. The world economic environment is extremely complex, and one word diagnoses generally do not apply to systems more complicated than a food processor. The greed critique of the private sector also seems to make the assumption that, in the absence of profits, people behave in a less greedy fashion. But a number of recent news stories confirm that the public sector succumbs to greed at least as often as the private sector.

For example, many cities and towns use special cameras to ticket drivers who run red lights. These are there for our safety, or so we are told. But multiple studies have recently shown that red light cameras actually increases accidents. When drivers spot the cameras, they frequently slam on the brakes, and this causes more accidents than are prevented by the cameras. In fact, a Dutch city has discovered that they can decrease accidents by a re-design of their roads that does not use traffic lights at all. So how many cities have dropped the red light cameras in light of these studies? Whenever this question is posed to city officials, it is amazing how quickly the topic is changed from safety to how could we possibly replace the lost ticket revenue. So are these cameras used because of safety, or because of greed?

Consider the recent pay scandal in Bell, California, a small, lower middle working class suburb of Los Angeles. The median family income in Bell is only $30,504, but the city residents pay some of the highest property tax rates in the country. When city officials insisted that these taxes needed to be raised even further to keep the city solvent, investigative reporters looked from the L. A. Times looked into city finances. They found that Bell was dramatically overpaying its officials. The Bell police chief earned 33% more than the police chief of Los Angeles. The city manager's base salary was $800,000, almost twice as much as what we pay the president of the United States, and bonuses and other benefits raised his total compensation for last year to $1.5 million dollars. To the poor, over-taxed families of Bell, this looks like greed.

Another case to ponder: in 1992, Massachusetts passed a ballot initiative to increase tobacco taxes, and to use the additional revenue for tobacco prevention programs. Starting in 1993, the state had created an effective anti-smoking ad campaign. The most popular of these ads featured the saga of Pam Laffin, a young woman who was dying of emphysema. The ads traced her various diagnoses, her vain attempt to get a lung transplant, and finally her death that left her two young daughters without a mother. The ads had quite an impact: the number of smokers in the state dropped off faster than the national average. And yet, this successful ad campaign dropped less than a decade later.

Now why did the state drop a program that was actually helping smokers quit? Too expensive, of course. Forget the promise to voters that the tobacco tax money would go to tobacco prevention, the legislators decided that they had better uses for the money. Don't worry that the tobacco tax is highly regressive, for smokers are a politically unpopular group. When tobacco companies benefit from the unhealthful addiction of smokers, we call that greed. So when the state over-taxes these same smokers, why isn't that greed?

These and other examples of government avarice show that the public sector effort to eliminate greed is about as successful as the Puritan effort to eliminate lust. It's not clear if , greed is an integral part of human nature. It is not an issue of whether "Greed is good", the main point is that "Greed is". One virtue of free markets is that they harness greed to some positive ends. For all the moral posturing, It was greed that propelled the tremendous improvements in our PC's (Moore's Law), in our cars, and in our home entertainment (from LP's to CD's to MP3's, from VHS to DVD to Blue Ray).

So the next time you hear someone sanctimoniously boiling down a complex issue to one word ("Greed"), feel free to accuse him of one of the other deadly sins: sloth.

Homeopathy! Apply Directly to the Recession!

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
- Albert Einstein

"[Groucho] My diagnosis never fails,
I know just what to do,
Whenever anybody ails,
I'm sympathetic too,
My heart within me melts...
[choir] His heart within him melts...
[Groucho] No matter what I treat 'em for,
they die from something else."
- From "Dr. Hackenbush", by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby.

A close examination of seeming unrelated topics often reveal some surprising connections. For example, the other night I was looking at youtube videos featuring James Randi, the famed magician and debunk-er of pseudoscience. One of Randi's more popular videos was his explanation of homeopathy, a form of medical quackery that produce the headache medicine Head-On, promoted by one of the most annoying TV commercials of all time. One of the basic principles of homeopathy is the law of similars, which holds that substances that cause healthy people to get symptoms can cure diseases that have these symptoms. For example, a homeopathic cure for a headache would be based on a substance that would induce the a headache in a well person. Who knows, maybe Head-On would work better if its ingredients included a portion of the Head-On ad.

Dr. Stephen Barrett, expert on medical quackery, dismisses the law of similars as a form of "sympathetic magic" without any scientific basis. In the interest of fairness, arguments for homeopathy can be found here.

Both James Randi and Dr. Barrett make a convincing case that the law of similars is rather silly. But the very night I saw the Randi video, I read this Bloomberg opinion piece on the Frank-Dodd housing reform bill. The author of this opinion piece, mortgage finance consultant Edward Pinto, criticizes the bill's list of criteria for prudent underwriting for not including a required minimum down payment nor a good credit history. It is easy to see the political motive for this bill; there is considerable pressure to increase home sales. But wasn't the current housing crisis caused by watered-down lending requirements that caused homeowners to take on excessive risk? The Frank-Dodd bill is basically applying the law of similars applied to the housing market: the policies that produced a downturn in a healthy economy will reverse the downturn in a recession. This is economic homeopathy, and hence economic quackery.

Why do people fall for medical quackery? All too often, the victims of medical frauds suffer from ailments for which there is no remedy. That is a hard prognosis to accept, and hence patients will accept any other alternative, no matter how shaky its scientific foundation.

The same can be said about why voters fall for economic quackery. Many home owners desperately want housing prices to return to the level they were at the height of the bubble. But it is unrealistic to expect housing prices to go that high again, since they far exceeded the value of the house. The cold, hard truth is that there is little that can be done to avoid the economic pain caused by our past mistakes. And no, the pain will not be lessened by an application of Head-On.

For more on the causes of the recession, I strongly recommend the documentary "Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis". In order to understand how the current financial crisis came about, the film makers talked to those few economists who foresaw the housing bust. These same economists warn that our current financial remedies will lead to another, even worse crisis.

The Dismal Science, Gangsta Rap Version

"We are all Keynesians now."
- President Richard M. Nixon

"We’ve been going back and forth for a century
[Keynes] I want to steer markets,
[Hayek] I want them set free
There’s a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it
[Hayek] Blame low interest rates.
[Keynes] No… it’s the animal spirits"
- From "Fear the Boom and Bust" by John Papola & Russ Roberts

Our anemic economy has dominated the news of late, and will almost certainly be the central issue in the November elections. In spite of record stimulus spending, we still have nearly 10% unemployment and sagging housing sales. The debate over this crisis centers around two economists of the previous century, John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and Frederic A. Hayek (1899-1992).

• In the book "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", Keynes argues that in times of economic downturns, government spending must increase in order to boost aggregate demand.
• Hayek, Nobel prize winner and author of the 1944 best seller "The Road to Serfdom", argued that excessive government spending could make things even worse by creating perverse incentives and blunting price signals.

Voters would greatly benefit from an understanding of these two great economists. Elites often lament that far too few voters have an appetite for scholarly treatises on topics such as economics, preferring instead to indulge in pop culture. How could Hayek and Keynes possibly compete with "Dancing with the Stars"?

What about combining economics with pop culture? This unlikely idea occurred to fledgling television producer / directors John Papola and Russ Roberts. Concerned about the current downturn, Papola felt that it was important to get these ideas to a wider audience. Papola and Roberts considered several popular culture renditions of the ideas of Keynes and Hayek, finally settling on a rap video. The resulting video, "Fear the Boom and Bust", has been views 1.3 million times on YouTube. It has been translated into Spanish, French, Japanese and Chinese. Economics professors across the globe have shown this video to their classes. The producers have received kudos from both noted Keynes biographer Robert Skidelsky and rapper Kei$ha.

See http://www.econstories.tv for more about this remarkable video that demonstrates that popular culture can actually promote learning.

Taking The Pledge

FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
- Francis Bellamy, "Pledge of Allegiance" (original version)

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republicans for Richard Stands, one nation invisible, with liberty and just us for all."
- The "Pledge of Allegiance" as many school children remember it

Massachusetts state law requires that teachers lead their class in the "Pledge of Allegiance" every day. The courts have ruled that a teacher or a student's right to choose not to recite the pledge is protected by the first amendment of the constitution, so the law has fallen into disuse. Every few years, some sort of drive pops up to bring back the recitation of the pledge in schools.
Now an Arlington teenager is spearheading such a drive.

Most of the challenges to the pledge have been on religious grounds. The words "under God" were added to the pledge in the 1950's, raising establishment clause issues. In courts, defenders of the pledge have argued that these words do not favor any particular religion, since followers of any faith can interpret the phrase "under God" to be the god of their faith. This argument ignores the rights of atheists and agnostics, as well as those religions that are not centered around the worship of one deity. What would the phrase "under God" mean to a Buddhist, a Confucian, or a Taoist? And for a Hindi, which god does the pledge refer to?

Advocates of reviving the school-led pledge assure us that no student or teacher will be forced to take the pledge. But the history of the commonwealth of Massachusetts suggests otherwise. In 1984, Randolf high school senior Susan Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, objected to the pledge. She believed that pledging to an inanimate object (the flag) would be a form of idolatry. Her home room teacher berated Susan for her beliefs in front of the class. Later she found herself bullied by her fellow students, and her family started receiving anonymous threatening, and often anti-Semitic, phone calls. Eventually Susan received police protection. These were the consequences of a student declining to take a pledge that was promoted as "voluntary".

Although most critiques of school-led pledging center around religion, the strongest critique of this proposal, ironically, comes from the pledge of allegiance itself. The pledge concisely but eloquently expresses why our country deserves our allegiance in its final six words: "with liberty and justice for all". Our children should learn how valuable liberty is, how rare the freedoms we enjoy today are in human history, and why this nation's founders fought so hard for it. But what would witnessing fellow students being pressured to recite a pledge against their will teach a child about liberty?

All too often, these mass rote recitations of the pledge result in children mouthing the words without really understanding them - witness the generations of kids who thought the pledge had something to do with "Richard Stands". At its worst, this ritual can deprive a student of his or her freedom, ironically in the name of a pledge about liberty. Let me suggest an alternative: why don't we have our grade school and high school curriculum include one week where the students learn about liberty? Our schools should have an annual "Freedom Week" where the students will be taught how liberty played a vital role in virtual every subject they are studying, including history, science, music and literature. There are dissidents who have come to this country to escape repression who would make excellent "Freedom Week" lecturers. If we could really impress our children with the importance of freedom, they would gladly and voluntarily pledge to this country.

Black Gold And Red Tape

"A bureaucracy always tends to become a pedantocracy."
- John Stuart Mill, "On Representative Government"

"Bureaucracy is the epoxy that greases the wheels of progress."
- James H. Boren, "When in Doubt, Mumble: a Bureaucrat’s Handbook"

The BP gulf region oil spill has released a sticky substance has rendered pelicans, crabs and sea turtle immobile. There is also something sticky that has immobilized those who should be responding to this crisis: Washington bureaucracy. Efforts to minimize the damage have been thwarted by existing regulations, mindlessly applied to a situation where they are clearly inappropriate:

• French oil skimmers offered to help with the clean-up, but were turned away because of the Jones act, a maritime protectionist measure that requires such work to be done by American labor;
• The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 prevents U.S. oil skimmers from other parts of the country from being dispatched to the gulf; and
• In an attempt to prevent the oil from reaching the shores, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal wanted to build sand berms, but that solution was delayed by the Interior Department over concerns whether the sand berms would comply with environmental regulations.

What is particularly frustrating about their application of these regulations to the golf oil spill actually undermine the original purpose of these regulations. The Jones act was intended to preserve American jobs, and yet its application to the BP spill endangers large numbers of American jobs. And sand berms, a low tech barrier made of sand and hay, may have some negative ecological impacts, but can anyone seriously argue that the berms would do more environmental damage than a coat of oil on the Louisiana shores?

In an interview with "Today" show host Matt Lauer, President Barack Obama said, in defense of the federal response to this crisis

"I don't sit around talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."

The president caught some flack for the crudeness of his "ass to kick" remark. But there is a far more serious problem with this remark. Finding someone's ass to kick may be emotionally satisfying, but it does nothing to clean up the mess. To get this job done, the president should issue waivers to some of these regulations that are hampering the needed rapid response to this spill. Instead of asking whose ass to kick, the president should have asked "whose hands should we untie?"

2010: The Year of Voters Behaving Badly

"If the ruler is upright, the people will do things without being ordered; if the ruler is not upright, even though he orders people to do something they will not comply."
- Analects of Confucius

"There's something wild about you child
That's so contagious
Let's be outrageous
--let's misbehave!!!"
- "Let's Misbehave" by Cole Porter.

The June 8th South Carolina Democratic senatorial primary is an important harbinger of the fall elections. Vic Rawl, the candidate supported by most of the Democratic party leaders, was expected to handily win the nomination. In a stunning upset, Rawl lost in a landslide to Alvin Greene, an unemployed veteran who did no fund raising, virtually no conventional campaigning, and whose campaign had neither a twitter account nor even a website. How could this happen?

Greene insists that he won with old fashioned stumping, driving across the state and meeting with the voters. As appealing as this explanation is, Greene does not appear to have the charisma to pull this off in his post-primary interviews. Some S.C. Democrats speculate that Greene is a Republican plant. This seems unlikely for a number of reasons. Pollsters agree that Senator Jim DeMint will almost certainly win re-election. Why would the S.C. Republicans take the risk of cheating when they can win honestly? Also, the only outside support that Greene allegedly received was the payment of his filing fee. If some conspirators came up with that fee, why didn't they back up their investment with some campaign funds? But more importantly, even if Alvin Greene were a plant, why did nearly 60% of S.C. Democratic voters pull the lever for him?

The answer is as simple as it is troubling for the major political parties. South Carolina voters resented the idea of anointing the Democratic leadership pick of Vic Rawl, and they resented it so much that they were willing to pick any other name on the ballot, even if it was someone they never heard of. This is part of a trend this year: voters in this year's primaries and special elections are refusing to follow the unwritten rules of behavior.

• The special election to fill late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat was widely expected to be over with the Democratic party primary. Conventional wisdom said that solidly Democratic Massachusetts would never replace the late senator with a Republican. Conventional wisdom was wrong; Republican Scott Brown won that race.
• In the Utah Republican senate primary, the party leaders lined up behind the incumbent Senator Bob Bennett. The Republican voters of Utah disagreed, deciding that they preferred a newcomer over their sitting senator.
• Much of the Democratic establishment, including the President, welcomed Senator Arlen Spector into their ranks and endorsed his bid to be the Pennsylvania Democratic nominee. A group of liberal Democrats disagreed, and successfully defeated Spector's nomination.
• In Arkansas, local labor groups ignored pleas from the national party and President Obama and campaigned against the re-nomination of Rep. Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln just barely won the nomination, but the aggressive primary fight has made her defeat in the general election an almost certainty.
  

This trend cuts across both party and ideological lines. Voters of all stripes are refusing to obey the unwritten rules. What has made this year's voters so ornery?

Maybe the problem could be traced to our leaders. After all, they also have unwritten rules. How good have they been at following them? Let's take a look at the Republicans. The rules say that the Republicans will avoid foreign entanglements, support free markets, cut excessive regulation and reduce deficits. For six years under the previous administration, Republicans held the presidency and a majority in both houses, and in those years:

• We entered two wars that have no clear end date;
• Congress enacted the most strongly protectionist policies since the Hoover administration, including high steel tariffs and farm subsidies;
• From 2001 to 2007, our supposed de-regulators actually added another 13,652 pages of regulations to the Federal registry; and
  
• By any measure, the federal deficit rose to a historic high.

It is interesting to note that on several of these issues (free trade, deregulation, balancing the budget), the Clinton administration had a better record of following the Republican rules than the Republicans did!

Now let us take a look at the Democrats. The rules say that Democrats will bring the troops home, counter corporate influence over our government, reign in executive power, and protect our civil liberties. Well, let's look at the record:

• In Obama's first year, he increased Afghanistan troop levels substantially;
• More than 40 former lobbyists hold senior positions in the current administration;
• Despite candidate Obama's criticism of G.W. Bush's use of the constitutionally dubious practice of evading executive limits through "signing statements", president Obama is now embracing the practice; and
• the Democrats actually worsened the already abysmal civil liberties record of the Bush administration by extending the use of warrantless wiretaps, opposed informing suspected terrorists of their Miranda rights, and even authorizing the execution of an American citizen!
  

Given the Obama record, it is no surprise that Daniel Ellsberg, the man behind the Pentagon Papers, said in a recent Der Spiegel interview

"I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East."

The question is not why voters are so contrarian this year. The real mystery is why voters have been so obedient for so long. As Confucius taught us more than two thousand years ago, politicians will see better behavior only after they model better behavior themselves. In the mean time, voters will continue to reason that "If our leader won't follow the rules, why should we?"

The Nomi Song Will Set You Free

"I CELEBRATE myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you."
- "Song of Myself" by Walt Whitman

"I'm young and I love to be young
I'm free and I love to be free
To live my life the way I want
To say and do whatever I please"
- "You Don't Own Me" by Leslie Gore

Klaus Nomi was one of the most talented Rock vocalists of all time, and certainly the one of most eccentric. His career was remarkably brief: he died on August 6, 1983, only two years after the release of his debut album. But the impact of his short tenure on the world stage nearly 27 years ago can still be seen in current culture and society.

Klaus was a leading light of the new wave movement in the late 1970's / early 1980's. This was an era when rock music was big business, and recorded music was the most profitable sector of the entertainment industry. But many artists felt that the obvious commercial success of the music industry was masking a serious problem: rock music was becoming standardized, dull, and formulaic. The rock genre needed new, fresh ideas in order to survive. In 1978, some young artists in New York devised a way to develop these new ideas by reviving an old idea: vaudeville. They staged a review called "New Wave Vaudeville" where performing artists of all stripes could try out their innovations before a live audience.

Enter Klaus Sperber, a West German counter tenor who had done some performing in Avant Garde theater. For the New Wave Vaudeville, he put together a rock act under the name Klaus Nomi. The act portrayed him as an visitor from another planet. He appeared on stage with a costume and make-up inspired by 1920's Dadaist theater, and with a hairstyle that actually emphasized that he was going bald. His set consisted of New Wave songs, classic rock songs, old standards like "Falling in Love Again", and his first love, opera. His stage persona was openly gay at a time when that was still controversial. Well, they said they were looking for something different, and Klaus Nomi definitely delivered. Nobody could mistake him for Eddie Money. As a vaudeville insider put it, "He was the wrong man, doing the wrong thing, at the wrong time". So naturally, he was the hit of the show.

His unusual background actually served him well in his role of rock singer. His opera training gave his voice phenomenal range and control. He also imparted a certain emotional intensity to every song he did, and his unique approach to his music provided us with a fresh look to even the most familiar of songs.

For example, Nomi did a cover of Leslie Gore's 1964 hit, "You Don't Own Me". Hailed as a feminist anthem, this song's lyrics are a girl's declaration of independence from a domineering boyfriend. Typically, when a man sings a song written for a woman, the gender references are swapped. Klaus sang the original lyrics, including the lyric "Don't say I can't go with other boys". In fact, when he gets to that line, he defiantly emphasized the word "boys". In short, he turned this feminist anthem into a gay pride anthem.

This song was seen as quite liberating by straight audiences as well as gay. This is in part because all of us, at some time or another, are burdened by social pressure. Nobody is a perfect match for societal norms, and hence everybody can sympathize with a square peg being hammered into a round hole. And that is what makes Nomi's cover of "You Don't Own Me" so joyous: in a world where this ultimate non-conformist can proclaim his freedom is a world where we can all be free.

After the New Wave Vaudeville, Klaus developed a devoted following in New York, and was very well received in Europe. He signed a contract with RCA. His debut album may be the only record that has both a song written by Chubby Checker and an aria written by Camille Saint-Saëns. He seemed well on his way to making it big when he contracted AIDS. He became one of the first celebrities to die of the disease, passing away years before either Liberace or Rock Hudson.

In spite of his tragically early demise, Nomi continues to attract new generations of fans through some appropriately unconventional channels. The hipsters who produce the Adult Swim show "The Venture Brothers" included Klaus as a supporting character. More surprisingly, Nomi got a boost from conservative icon Rush Limbaugh. Rush uses Nomi's "You Don't Own Me" as one of his update themes, and this has spiked interest (and sales) among conservative republicans.

It may seem strange the same political movement that gave us the infamously anti-gay 1992 Family Values convention is now listening to the music of Klaus Nomi. I would argue that Klaus Nomi actually represents what the Republican party is supposed to be about far better than the 1992 convention did. After all, if the Republicans are serious about the principles of promoting limited government and individual liberty, what better spokesman could they have than Nomi?

The 2004 documentary of Klaus Nomi's life and career, "The Nomi Song" is now available online, and I heartily recommend it. If nothing else, catch the end of the film. The film makers have a very clever, almost magical and surprisingly upbeat way to wrap up his life story.

The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre Out West

"If you have a lot of what people want and can't get, then you can supply the demand and shovel in the dough."
- Lucky Luciano

"Tell me why are we, so blind to see
That the ones we hurt, are you and me?"
- From "Gangsta's Paradise" by Coolio

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, the country's strictest anti-illegal immigration legislation, has generated a lot of discussion from both sides of the political spectrum. But somehow, nearly everyone avoids talking about the root causes of the crisis that spawned SB 1070.

Arizona is suffering from a meteoric rise in violent crime, including murders, assaults and human trafficking. Most of this crime is caused by Mexican organized crime groups. In just a few short years, Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the western hemisphere. It is totally understandable that many Arizonians would want to take action. The public outcry over the brutal slaying of 58 year old rancher Robert Krentz and his dog made some sort of action inevitable.

SB 1070 , like most legislation produced from a panic, unfortunately has some serious flaws. The bill aims to cut down on illegal immigration. The premise is that without illegal immigrants from Mexico, we would have no Mexican crime cartels. This simplistic approach to the crime would negatively affect law-abiding immigrants without really addressing the real cause of the crime wave.

Why did the Mexican cartels invade Arizona in recent years? After all, the flood of Mexican immigrants has been going on for decades now. This question could be answered by looking south of the border. The cartels have been active in Mexico and South America for decades, demonstrating all the brutality that Arizona is now experiencing. Mexico has fought back by liberalizing its drug policy, eliminating much of the profit of the cartel's activities. The cartels have therefore moved to greener pastures up North, where our continuing war on drugs guarantees them artificially high profits.

But couldn't SB 1070 keep the cartels out of the US? Frankly, I doubt it, but let us assume that Sb 1070 was 100% effective at keeping out the Mexican cartels. Does anyone really believe that some other organized crime group would not pick up the slack? A quick check of INTERPOL will show that the Albanian Rudaj Organization, the Russian Bratva, the Chinese Triads, and even the Japanese Yakuza are active in the U.S. Any one of these groups would love to take over the drug trade. SB 1070, even if it accomplished all of its goals, would do little more than change the identity of the gangs performing the kidnappings and murders.

The cause of the problem is really the war on drugs, and hence the solution is to bring this ill fated war to an end. Consider the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre of February 14, 1929. The public outcry over this brutal mob hit brought Prohibition into question. It soon became clear that the crime and corruption caused by prohibition far outweighed its benefits. So let us view the Robert Krentz execution as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre of our time: a horrific crime that reveals that the war on drugs extracts a price on us all that is too high to pay.

Elena Kagan, George McGovern, and Experience

"Experience. The wisdom that enables us to recognize in an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced. "
- From "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce.

Most of the discussion about supreme court nominee Elena Kagen has centered around her experience. Critics have noted that for all her accomplishments, Kagen has not spent much time in the courtroom. In a column published this morning, Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan had a different take on the experience issue: the problem with Kagen is not her lack of time in court, it is her lack of time spent outside of the company of elites and positions of privilege. As Eagen points out, the current court, even with Kagen, shows diversity in the areas of race and gender, but virtually no diversity of background. All of these justices come from Ivy League schools. Only Thomas and Sotomayor have worked in state or local courts. With Justice Stevens departure, the court will have no veterans.

The problem is not just with the supreme court; the executive branch also lacks background diversity. Less that 10% of the Obama cabinet have work experience in the private sector. President Obama has never had to make payroll. Some of his statement reflect a lack of understanding of how businesses work, such as when he refers to profits as overhead, or proclaiming at a February press conference that "If [small businesses] can get the bank loans to boost their payroll ...".

Why is this lack of experience with life outside of the elites important? Consider former senator and presidential candidate George McGovern. After leaving the Senate, George bought an inn in Connecticut. Four years later, the inn went bankrupt. In his frank assessment of his inn's failure, George McGovern places the blame on policies he enacted as a Senator! Among the inn's woes were excessive regulations that place an especially heavy burden on small businesses. Lawsuit abuse was also an issue: he was forced into expensive litigation over people who fell in - or near - his establishment. Moreover, he noted that medical lawsuit abuse was driving up his medical insurance costs. As a senator, he had heard these concerns from businessmen, but dismissed them as overblown. McGovern admits that this business venture has taught him how wrong he was to dismiss these concerns, and that if he had tried his hand at a business earlier in life, he would have been a better senator and presidential candidate.

So the next time a nominee comes up for confirmation, please urge our senators to avoid unimportant issues such a ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, and ask the really important questions:

• Have you ever run a cafe, a dry cleaner, or other such small business?
• If not, what qualifies you to judge the people who do?
  

Cartoon Robot Reveals The Meaning Of Life

"The wicked person flees when there is no one pursuing, but the righteous person is as confident as a lion."
- Proverbs 28:1

"Astro Boy there you go
Will you fight friend or foe?
Cosmic ranger, life of danger,
Everything is GO Astro Boy."
- From the Astro Boy Theme by Tatsuo Takai

One of the most influential forms of popular culture is the Japanese style of animation commonly known as anime. Anime can be seen

• on the various network Saturday morning cartoon blocks;
• as part of adult animation networks such as Adult Swim;
• and in the movie theaters, e.g. the Miyazaki features "Ponyo" and "Howl's Moving Castle".

Along with my fellow baby boomers, I witnessed the beginning of Anime in America, in the humble form of the black and white television cartoon series "Astro Boy" (1963-1966). Created by anime / manga pioneer Osamu Tezuka, "Astro Boy" is a science fiction story that takes place in a future society where robots are commonplace. A leading scientist, distraught with the death of his own son, creates an advanced robot in the likeness of his boy. The robot, named Astro Boy, has human-like emotions as well as incredible strength and the ability to fly. Astro uses his special robot abilities to serve as a superhero, fighting crime and injustice.

The series is an appealing combination of adventure and humor, but the appeal of the show went beyond these elements. The show actually dealt with some serious issues in way that the kids in my neighborhood really respected. For example, Astro Boy frequently had to deal with his society's antiquated attitude towards robots: even though many robots in Astro's world had feelings and intelligence, they were often treated as mere objects by the humans. Growing up in 1960's Detroit, I assumed that this unfair treatment of robots was a parable about racism. Later, I learned that Tezuka's WWII experiences galvanized his disdain of racism, and that his works often include anti-racist themes. Reading Tezuka's anti-Nazi manga "Adolf", I could not help but think of Astro Boy.

The episode that had the greatest impact on us was the final episode of the 1960's, "The Greatest Adventure on Earth" (1966). Towards the end of the show , Astro discovers that a planet-destroying missile is heading towards the Earth. Astro barely has enough time to redirect the missile into the sun, but he cannot do so without being pulled into the sun himself. Our hero saves the Earth and sacrifices himself in the process. I was shocked when I saw our cartoon hero die, but only for a second, for it occurred to me that there was something wonderful about this episode. "Astro Boy" was the only show of that era that trusted the kids of our age to be able to handle the important topic of death. They didn't side step it, they didn't sugar coat it, and they didn't talk down to us. They made it clear that Astro Boy was not coming back from his final mission. I really appreciated the trust and respect that the show's creators had in us kids.

In the 1983 "Sesame Street" episode "Farewell, Mr. Hooper", Big Bird learns that storekeeper and friend Mr. Hooper had died. This episode won accolades for its honest depiction of death in terms that child viewers could understand. Granted, "Farewell, Mr. Hooper" episode handled the topic of death exceptionally well, but it should not be forgotten that "Astro Boy" taught children about mortality over a decade before "Sesame Street" did. Moreover, "Astro Boy" dealt with the even more sensitive topic of the death of a child.

There is something uplifting about the final "Astro Boy" episode: he died to uphold the same principles he held throughout his brief existence. Astro's death was a good death in a way, in that it was the finish to a good and honorable life.

The Rise of the Non-Religious Right

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
- James Madison, in a letter to Edward Livingston

"That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight, I'm
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no, I've said too much
I haven't said enough"
- From "Losing My Religion" by R.E.M.

One advantage of being a libertarian is that it allows one to view the more dominant political movements (i.e. liberalism and conservatism) without bias, and hence detect trends that mainstream analysts often miss. One such trend is the right's recent acceptance of the non-believers in their ranks. Just a few years ago, the religious right had a dominant role in the conservative movement. They were George W. Bush favorite constituency. It is significant that this president that was (in)famous for his restrained use of the veto pen first used it on an issue pushed almost exclusively by the religious right. But the following events suggest how quickly things have changed in just a few years.

• When Ayn Rand first gained prominence in the 1940's and 50's, the right widely criticized her for her militant atheism. But this year, the revival of interest in Rand's work has gotten quite favorable coverage from the right wing media. Her atheism is noted briefly in passing, if at all.
  
• John Derbyshire, editor of the National Review Online, mentions in his new book "We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism" that, due to his doubts, he has not attended a church in years. The right wing web sites I've seen that have reviewed the book have not made a big fuss about Derbyshire's decision to leave his church; in fact, few sites even mention it.
• A recent poll of young republicans show that the right's next generation has very little interest in the religious right's agenda. It appears that this might be the last generation where same-sex marriage will be a contentious issue.

The religious right has always been controversial, even in conservative circles. Remember Goldwater's famous quote, "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass"? One would expect the religious right to lose some clout in recent years, due to their connection to the pariah George W. Bush. But even so, a change this dramatic is worth noting.

Charles Darwin Meets Adam Smith

"Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are."
- Francis Crick

"Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw."
- From "Trees" by Neil Peart

Great ideas in one field of study are often variants of great ideas in another field. Consider the theory of evolution as developed Charles Darwin, the father of modern biology. According to the theory of evolution, each new generation of a species will include genetic variations. The vast majority of these variation will not help the organism to survive, and hence will quickly disappear. The rare variation that helps the organism survive, however, will be passed onto the next generation and will improve the species. The rich, vibrant ecological system we have today is the bi-product of the myriad of these variants that have occurred in Earth's history.

The process of evolution can seem wasteful and cruel: not only do most variants fail, but often once viable species become extinct due to competition from new species. But the destruction of less fit species is a vital part of the process, and the payoff of this process is huge.

The theory of Evolution has a striking resemblance to the free market concept as advocated by Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. In a free market economy, one is permitted to start a new business to provide a good or service. As with most biological variants, most new businesses fail. But the business that finds a better way to satisfy market needs will have a competitive advantage that will allow it to survive. As with evolution, a free market economy can seem cruel and wasteful, as many new businesses and even old established businesses go under. But this destruction is an essential part of the process of improving the economy. The fall of less fit companies is required to allow the next innovations to thrive.

The recently proposed "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" shows how poorly the work of Adam Smith (and evolution) is understood in Washington these days. The idea is being sold as a way for the taxpayers to get back the money they lent to the bankers for the recent bailout. The problem with this fee, however, is banks that have already repaid their loans with interest, and even banks that did not take any federal funds, will be required to pay this fee. In effect, the banks that managed the recent financial tsunami properly will be called on to cover the expenses caused by less well run banks. None of this "survival of the fittest" jazz here; D.C. has decided that all banks should be saved, whether they are fit or not.

To understand what is wrong with this proposal, consider what would have happened if the proponents of this proposal had been in charge of fixing the Earth's environmental crisis of 65 million B.C.E.

"Let me be clear: the major species of this planet, the Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops are too big to fail without causing the ecology to go into major collapse. There are those who say that we need to choose between saving these dinosaurs and allowing the new mammals to flourish. This is a false choice: the Earth can support both, as long as the new mammals follow sensible restrictions. I tell these new mammal species that there is a time for multiplication, but now is not that time. "

I'm glad this approach was not taken in the late Cretaceous period: the dinosaurs would still have gone extinct, and the world would now be poorer for this futile attempt to put off the inevitable. The proposed bank fee was a bad idea 65 million years ago, and it still is a bad idea today.

Learning From A Child Who Could Not Speak

"I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it."
- Mark 10:15

"Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own"
- from "God Bless The Child" by Billie Holiday and Arthur Herzog Jr.

Back when I had started college, I worked as a bagger at a grocery store in the Detroit area. The store was near a housing project, and it provided a novel economic opportunity for some of the project residents. A handful of young boys from the project hung around the store in order to earn tips by helping customers load their groceries into their cars. This most micro of micro economies was fueled by pocket change, but that was enough to provide these boys with some treats.

One of these boys working for tips stood out for several reasons, most noticeably because this boy was unable to communicate by speech. I'm not sure why, but his attempts at speaking was unintelligible grunts that conveyed emotions, but nobody could make out the words. He used to communicate with his own set of hand gestures, sort of like a pidgin sign language, that the people who knew him quickly learned.

But what I found most remarkable was that he was by far the most cheerful person I have ever met. He was always very upbeat when working his ersatz job. He was always smiling, and he always greeted me (using his "hello" gesture) with a big grin. I found his positive attitude admirable, and as strange as it might sound, I sort of envied him. At college, I met people from good (sometimes privileged) backgrounds with lots of potential who were miserable. And yet this kid, raised in poverty and with a serious disability, was a constant ray of sunshine. What was the secret of his upbeat view of life?

The cynical explanation would be that his optimism is rooted in naivete; he simply does not understand how bad his situation is. But look at things from his point of view. He really enjoyed helping people, he took pride in doing what he loved, and on top of it, he earned spending money. He sees a lot of positives in his life that most of us would overlook.

In fact, a lot of humanity suffer from unwarranted pessimism. In Bryan Caplan's excellent book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies", Professor Caplan notes that pessimism is one of the more common biases of voters. The public tends to overestimate the severity of contemporary problems, while idealizing conditions in the past and in other countries. Gilbert and Sullivan parodied this bias in "The Mikado", where Lord High Executioner Ko-Ko includes in his little list of potential victims

"The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own"

Let's face it, most people don't appreciate the positives in their lives until those positives become part of their past. But not this kid earning tips at the grocery store; he fully appreciated life as it was happening. He had a disability that prevented him from speaking, but lacked the common disability of pessimism. I feel like I learned something valuable from him, and he taught it to me without saying a word.