Occupy Boston Versus What Occupies Mayor Menino's Soul

"Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
- From "The Life and Death of Julies Caesar", Act I Scene II

"Take a step outside yourself
Then you turn around
Take a look at who you are
It's pretty scary"
- From "Turn Around" (1980) lyrics by Mark Mothersbaugh and Gerald Casale

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement has spread to many big cities, including Boston. Recently Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has ordered the arrests of "Occupy Boston" protesters. On the surface, the Mayor has some valid charges: the protest was spilling over onto the Rose Kennedy Greenway, in violation of zoning rules. The protests have disrupted commercial activity. In particular, a lucrative food festival was cancelled because the protesters had taken over the space where the event would have taken place. Yes, we have the irony that an event that would have provided a lot of temp jobs was cancelled so that people could protest unemployment.

But cry no tears for the his honor the Mayor. The blame for the current lawlessness goes beyond the young people he is arresting. The true cause of the "Occupy Boston" controversy can best be explained by the following facts about Massachusetts politics:

1. Massachusetts is basically a one-party state, so much so that almost all elections are considered over after the Democratic primary;
2. This lack of any political challenge has created unusually powerful and long tenured public officials; and
3. Perhaps because of facts 1 and 2, the commonwealth of Massachusetts has suffered more than her fair share of government corruption (the last three House Speakers are all convicted felons).

Mayor Menino is the archetypical Massachusetts politician. First elected in 1993, Menino has rarely encountered more than token opposition in subsequent elections. He is popular for taking a no-holds-barred approach to the challenges of the office, often at the expense of our constitutional rights.

In 2005, there was a popular line of tee shirts emblazoned with the words "Stop Snitchen'". Menino condemned these shirts as discouraging cooperation with the police. When some Boston stores wanted to sell these shirts, the Mayor vowed to send officers into the stores to seize the shirts. Menino was advised that such a seizure would raise free speech issues, so he tried another tact. City inspectors discovered (who knew?) that the clothing stores that wanted to carry the shirts (and only those stores) had code violations. And once the orders for "Stop Snitchen'" shirts were cancelled, the inspectors found that these stores were up to code after all! Score 1 for Mayor Menino, 0 for the first amendment.

In January of 2007, the Mayor was rightly concerned that after an AFC playoff game, Patriot fans might engage in violence. The Mayor felt that TV news coverage of sports bars might inflame the fans. Lesser men might have urged TV newscasters to be cautious, but not our Honor the Mayor. With all the boldness of a honey badger, he told the Boston bar and tavern owners, a group that is even more under the city's thumb than clothing stores, to not allow TV crews into their establishments. With the fear of losing their precious liquor licenses, TV journalists were shut out of Boston bars. So much for an independent fourth estate; it's good to be the king.

When the Tea Party demonstration (the recent one, not the 1773 party) took place in Boston, the Mayor insisted that they needed permits and that they need to pay a substantial fee to cover expenses that Boston might incur. The idea that we have to get permits and pay fees in order to exercise our constitutional right to assemble is problematic, but there is an even more disturbing aspect to the Boston protest permit and fees system. Before "Occupy Boston", Mayor Menino enthused over the ideas that the protestors would be advancing. So unlike the Tea Party, no permits or fees were required of the Occupy Boston organizers. Civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate, founder of the campus free speech organization F.I.R.E., is appalled that these fees and red tape are applied at the whims of the Mayor, even though he sympathizes with "Occupy Boston". This is not about protecting city finances: in police overtime alone, "Occupy Boston" has far exceeded all expenses related to the Tea Party event. This is about directing the city's finances to the political causes that the Mayor favors. These arbitrary fees and permits represent a new low in the abuse of power, even by Bay State standards.

So even after giving the "Occupy Boston" people a pass, his honor the Mayor is miffed that the demonstrators circumvent or ignore the laws that they don't like. Sorry Mayor, you do not have my sympathy. If you want Bostonians to show more respect for the law, you should model that behavior by showing some respect for the most important set of laws for our government officials: the U.S. constitution. The constitution asserts that all of us, as part of our basic nature, have certain inalienable rights, including the right to free speech and to assemble. Mayor Menino, could your persistent violations of the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment be viewed by the young men and women protesting that the law is not worth taking seriously? If the Mayor were to ask the arrested protestors where they learned to disrespect the law, they could justifiably respond with the 1980's Ad line, "I learned it from watching you!".

For the lighter side of Thomas Menino, check out the Official Mumbles Menino web site. The mayor speeches are filled with many inadvertent malaprops, spoonerisms, and novel phrasing, so the news commentators that cover them often have to do double duty as cryptographers. It appears that he has as much trouble with his own speech as he has with others. The "Mumbles Menino" site includes the funniest and / or most WTF Menino utterances.

On the heavier side of Tom Menino, in recent years he has suffered from significant weight gain. Imagine an overweight autocratic leader who speaks in a way that many people find hard to understand. That image seems familiar; I think I remember where I've seen it:

The New Industrial State is Not Too Big to Fail

"There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after."
- Ecclesiastes 1:12

"Your castles may tumble (that's fate after all)
Life's really funny that way
No use to grumble, smile as they fall
Weren't you king for a day?"
- From "Wrap Your Troubles in Dreams" (1931), lyrics by Ted Koehler and Billy Moll

The news coverage of Steve Jobs' retirement from Apple predictably discussed his greatest successes: the iMac, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. But many articles about this event also covered his failed projects: the Apple III, the Apple Lisa, and the NeXT workstation. This is commendable, for Jobs' clunkers are an important part of the story. We learn more from failure than we do from success. If Jobs did not learn from his blunders, he might never have come up with the iPhone.

There is a failed project that can teach us a lot about our current financial crisis: the book "The New Industrial State" by famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, based on a lecture series broadcast by the BBC. The main theme of this book is that the large corporations are no longer subject to market forces. Galbraith contends that the big industry leaders can use a combination of leverage, advertizing, and consolidation to squash any competitor that threatens them. The book focuses on several large corporations that J.K. Galbraith contends will always dominate their industry.

So what's the problem with this book? Well, it was first published in 1967, and as fans of Mad Men can tell you, the markets have changed quite a lot since the 1960's. Back then, General Motors made more than half of the cars sold in the U.S., as well as a significant share of some foreign markets. So naturally "The New Industrial State" assures us that GM is one of the companies that need not worry about competition. When it comes to computers, whether we are talking about hardware or software, the book asserts that the one company that matters will always be IBM. And what about retail? Remember, 1967 is before Walmart or even Kmart made it big, so the book's examples of the forever dominant retailers are Sears (currently on the ropes) and Montgomery Ward (went bankrupt in 2000, although recently revived as an online store). These 1960's corporate giants lost their market dominance to new companies whose innovations won over the customers. The history of the last few decades provides the definitive rebuttal to "The New Industrial State": even the largest corporations must remain competitive to stay alive.

The basic premise of "The New Industrial State" is widely believed today. If only I had a dime for each prediction that the internet will no longer be a venue of free speech because soon one company will take over the internet. Funny thing is, the company that is predicted to take over the internet keeps changing: Netscape, Microsoft, AOL, Google, and Facebook have all been projected to be our future on-line overlord. In 5 years, there will probably be some company not in this list that will be viewed as the future emperor of the internet.

Some very important insights in our current economy can be learned from the failure of "The New Industrial State".

• There is no corporation that is "Too Big to Fail". When a corporation falters, there are plenty of other companies that will pick up the slack. In the 1970's, A&P went from the largest grocery chain in the country to a chain that operated in a handful of east coast states. The closures of all those A&P stores did not cause mass starvation, for these closures were matched by openings of other grocery stores.
• The 2008 bailouts of failed large corporations were therefore unnecessary and counterproductive. At a time when the federal government could ill afford it, taxpayer dollars were wasted to reward poor corporate decisions at the expense of those companies that served their customers better.
• The government should not be in the business of picking market leaders. Keep in mind that John Kenneth Galbraith was an award winning economist who advised presidents FDR and JFK. If Galbraith could not predict which companies would prevail, what chance do we have that our current experts can safely invest our tax dollars in future winning companies? This is the sort of hubris that lead to the Solyndra debacle.

Like the Apple III, "The New Industrial State" is a flawed work, but we can learn a lot from its errors. One wonders if the president's economic team understand where Galbraith went wrong, so that they can avoid repeating his mistakes.

Solving the Budget Crisis Through Theft

"If you steal from one author, it's plagiarism. If you steal from two, it's research."
- John Burke

"PlagiarizeLet no one else's work evade your eyes
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes
So don't shade your eyes
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'"
- From "Lobachevsky" by Tom Lehrer.

The federal budget fight has been unusually acrimonious. On July 14, Obama walked out of the budget talks. On July 22, Boehner walked out of the budget talks. And throughout these talks, the American public has been walking out from both parties, and for good reason: neither party has been serious about tackling the debt crisis. Sure, both sides crow about how they have proposed drastic cuts, but these spending proposals are "cuts" only in a sense that is accepted no where else than Washington. What they mean by cuts is that they propose spending less than projected 2011 spending. Neither the "Cut, Cap, and Trade" proposal nor the president's most recent proposal would reduce 2011 spending to less than the previous year, even after adjusting last year's spending for inflation and population growth. The Republicans have been reluctant to really address the looming entitlement crisis. Congressional Democrats are even worse on this issue, threatening to block any entitlement program changes, while hypocritically complaining that the Republicans are too inflexible about taxes.

We need not worry the August 2 deadline, however. For starters, the default deadline is bogus anyways: the government need not default nor miss sending Social Security checks if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2. But now that both sides have propped up this phony crisis, they will have to save face by coming up with some compromise before the "deadline". The bigger problem is that the compromise that the president and congress will likely fall far short of what is needed to reassure the rating services such as Standard and Poor's. They want to see creditable deficit reduction if U.S. government bonds are to retain their AAA ratings. If U.S. bonds are downgraded,

1. Bond holders will be hurt; and
2. The costs of U.S. borrowing will balloon.

So we may dodge the August 2 bullet, only to be hit with the S&P bond downgrade.

Dramatic action is required to prevent our bond rating dropping to AA. We need a deficit reduction plan, and fast. One effective approach would be to find a previous successful budget, and steal it. In short, we can solve our money problem by theft - not of money, but ideas.

I propose that the 2011 budget be based on the U.S. budget from 2000, one of the last budgets assembled before the 2 recent spendthrift administrations. This budget covered the basic government functions while spending less than the revenues collected. This budget was put together by a Democratic president working with a Republican congress - if they could do it, why can't we? When you adjust the 2000 budget for inflation and population growth, it comes out to $1,965,999 million. This would allow us to meet the S&P deficit reduction limits without taking the perilous action of raising taxes in a troubled economy. So one simple approach would be to adopt the 2000 budget, adjusted for inflation and population growth. This is the one sequel that we would all welcome.

Critics will immediately point out how the world has changed since 2000. We are now fighting 3 simultaneous wars, we have a slew of new agencies that have cropped up to fight the "War on Terror", a bunch of new Czars, not to mention ambitious new programs such as designing and building a whole new rail system. How could the 2000 budget cover these programs that did not exist 10 years ago? To this argument, I would reply that a large part of the reason we are in this mess is that we adopted expensive new programs without figuring out how to pay for them. We simply cannot afford all of them, so we need to prioritize. Given that we almost certainly cannot do both, should we engage in nation building in 3 middle east countries, or should we rebuild our own nation? Do we really need all these agencies that we were able to get along without for two centuries, and if so, could we pay for them by making cuts elsewhere in the 2000 prototype budget? If we really need the TSA, could we pay for it by eliminating the Import-Export bank or by cutting farm subsidies paid to millionaire farmers?

Real budget reform is possible. In fact, it is inevitable: the only real question is whether we fix the budget ourselves now or let our creditors decide how to fix it in the future. With the 200 budget austerity program, we can avoid default, avoid a credit downgrade, pay down the deficit, revive the economy, and then we can party like it's 1999.

Should Someone Take the Fall for the Central Falls Pension Mess?

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
- George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman" (1903)

"With great power comes great responsibility."
- Stan Lee / Steve Ditko / David Koepp, "Spiderman" (2002)

Many state and local governments are burdened with unfunded pension liabilities. Recently it was revealed that Central Falls, Rhode Island, a small, impoverished city, has a pension obligation of $80 million. This is more than the city could possibly pay, so Central Falls is looking into filing for municipal bankruptcy. The backup plan is to go into receivership.

I wonder if this rash of municipal pension problems is caused in part because there is no one individual who is legally liable when a municipality makes pension agreements that are not fully funded. Private company officials have done the "perp walk" for not funding their pension obligations. But who will go to jail for Central Falls' pension promises that cannot be met? The mayor? City councilors? The city's union contract negotiators? And who, if anybody, should go to jail for the California pension mess?

Please contribute your thoughts: who, if anyone, should be held liable if a municipality does not properly fund its pension obligations? And if we do not hold any one person liable, what is the best way to prevent future pension crises? Feel free to also discuss the mothers of all unfunded liabilities, social security and medicare.

The Great Fall of China

"To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm."
- F. A. Hayek

"Yeah, the harder they come,
The harder they'll fall
One and all"
- "The Harder They Come" by Jimmy Cliff.

The U.S. economy may have "recovered" according to some criteria formulated in D.C., but for most American citizens, this is the weakest economy they have seen in quite a while. The last time that unemployment was hovering around 9% for this long was before WWII. Over 2.7 million Americans live in a home with a mortgage that has not been paid in more than a year. The U.S. debt crisis has become a concern for the IMF.

The financial reports from Europe are also rather grim. The one country that seems to be avoiding the downturn is China. China benefits from a steadily growing GDP and now has a substantial middle class. But all is not well for the Chinese economy. An Australian news report indicates that China has a serious real estate bubble, and when it bursts, the impact could dwarf the 2008 U.S. recession.

China has a mixed economy, and the communists still control the real estate sector. Anticipating a rapidly rising upper middle class, the communists built vast cities of luxury apartment buildings. These apartment buildings are going up faster (much faster) than the ranks of Chinese yuppies who are supposed to be renting them. There are new towns where the apartment occupancy rate is 25%. The government doesn't provide statistics, but it is estimated that China has 64 million empty apartments.

Even more amazing is the story of the New South China Mall, the largest shopping mall in the world. This impressively designed mall is more than twice the size of the Mall of America. The mall, however, lacks two essential ingredients for a successful shopping center: merchants and customers. Since opening their doors in 2005, the occupancy rate has never risen much above 1%. The New South China Mall was basically born as a dead mall.

So how will this Chinese real estate bubble play out? Anyone who has lived in the U.S in 2008 knows the script. The building owners cannot keep tossing their money into these pits forever, and will have to figure out some way to recoup some of their investment. Undoubtedly, they will have to dramatically slash rents in order to get something for their empty spaces. This will drive down the value of real estate, and therefore any fund based on property values. This devaluation weakens the economy, which creates further downward pressure on rents, therefore making the real estate crisis even worse. The situation is like the 2008 American housing market, but China's bubble is much bigger. And when this bubble bursts, it will be felt across the globe.

The impact of a Chinese bubble burst would have a mostly negative impact on European and American markets, delaying any possible recovery. But there is some good news that could come out of a Chinese market crash.

• A real estate market crash will greatly reduce the prestige and power of the Chinese communist elites. It may even bring an end to one party rule.
  
• The economic success of China has been used to advocate authoritarian measures in the west. On "Meet the Press", New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman asked wistfully "What if we could just be China for a day" so that we could pass measures he likes without having to go through our messy democratic process. The failure of the Chinese command economy would end this sort of totalitarian nonsense.
• The crash would teach the nations of the world a valuable lesson, namely to avoid what Nobel prize winning economist F. A. Hayek called "The Fatal Conceit", that is, the belief that "man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes." In the wake of China's failure to create prosperity on command, governments might take a more flexible, decentralized, market-based approach to decision making.

So hard times may be with us for a bit longer, but we will eventually come out of this both wiser and more prosperous. Unfettered by bureaucracy, humans always work out some ingenious methods to create wealth. As Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch put it in their excellent new book "The Declaration of Independents", we'll see a "future so bright, we gotta wear shades."

Warring Tribes Join Forces To Fight Smut!

"Pornography is now considered as addictive as drugs"
- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart

Katie: The internet is really really great,
Trekkie Monster: For porn!
Katie: I've got a fast connect, so I don't have to wait!
Trekkie Monster: For porn!
- From "The Internet Is For Porn" by Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx

It is hard to think of a time when pornography was not in the news. When the navy seals found Bin Laden, they found a stash of pornography in his lair. Several weeks ago, Sen. Orrin Hatch sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding more obscenity prosecutions. Going back to the 1980's, Ronald Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese created a Commission on Pornography. A presidential commission on pornography was assembled in the late 1960's, but when this commission recommended legalization, then President Richard M. Nixon rejected the commission's findings. In the mid-sixties, financier Charles Keating (a man who later had his own ethics issues) bankrolled an anti-pornography drive.

The most interesting anti-smut movement in my lifetime was the Women Against Pornography group formed in the late 1970's. Before this group was formed, most of the support for obscenity laws came from conservative religious groups. These early Christian right groups used to argue that pornography should not be given first amendment protection because it subconsciously alters the mind, causing both addiction and a host of anti-social behaviors. Reverends Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell etc. asserted that if pornography were legal, we would see a dramatic increase in rape, adultery, divorce, teen pregnancy and wife beating.

I was in college in the 1970's, and there was strong support for civil liberties and free speech on the campuses of that era. That ended with the arrival of Women Against Pornography, a group founded to advance the work of feminist authors Andrea Dworkin and Catharine McKinnon. Dworkin and McKinnon argued that smutty books, magazines and films, and even publications as innocuous as Playboy were a crime against women. What I found remarkable about this group's arguments on the porn issue was how close it was to the case made by the religious right. These feminists said that pornography had special mind-altering properties, that pornography is like an addictive drug, and that it causes a plague of social ills. Attending one of their rallies, I felt like I was hearing Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell dressed up in drag (sorry for that rather unpleasant imagery). To be fair, the anti-porn feminists did come up with one argument not previously made by the religious right: they argued that porn convinces men that women are only good for sex, and hence porn consumers will not accept females in professional positions. I didn't find this argument convincing, but at least it was original.

Amazingly enough, this group had a profound impact on college campuses. I was astounded with how many students and professors did a 180 degree turn on obscenity laws, and doing so on the basis of arguments that were soundly rejected a few years ago. It was not as though everyone had just discovered the genius of Pat Robertson. So what happened to the ideals, such as free speech, civil liberties, and sexual freedom, that we used to share? This experience demonstrated an important principle. Although most people think that their political / social / religious views are shaped by their ideals, what really shapes their views is group identity, also known as tribalism. They feel the pressure to conform with the prevailing opinion of the social group that they are members of. The Women Against Pornography story is really about one tribe (feminists) joining forces with an enemy tribe (the religious right) in order to fight a common enemy, smut peddlers. And as a committed civil libertarian, I found it appalling that this would be the issue that brought these sides together.

Fortunately, Women Against Pornography disbanded in the late 1980's, so now only the social conservatives carry on the battle against smut. The right has lost a lot of its enthusiasm over this issue: if P. J. O'Rourke and Greg Gutfeld got together to discuss porn, they'd probably end up talking about where to find the really good stuff. But frankly, this issue was settled in the 1990's with the invention of the internet. The internet made pornography more available than ever. If there was anything to the right (or left) case against porn, then the rise of the on-line community would have been accompanied by large increases in rapes, divorces, teen pregnancies, etc. But as this Hit and Run post pointed out, all of these social ills have actually lessened since 1991.

To this, I would add that the internet also disproved the theory that porn consumers could not accept that women can be good for something besides sex. Since web browsing hit the big time, women have been swelling the ranks of many professions. And as a man, I am happy to report that the popularity of the Chippendales has not produced a hoard of women who think that men are only good for the full monty.

When Will We See War Declared the Right Way?

"The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
- Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

"Then it’s war!
Freedonia’s going to war!
Each native son will grab a gun.
And run away to war!"
- From "The Country's Goin' to War" by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby;

Pundits have criticized the U.S. bombing of Libya for its ill timing, its lack of planning, and for the fuzzy end goals. As serious as these issues are, there is an even bigger problem with this military action: is it constitutional? According to section 8 of the constitution, the power to declare war resides with congress. The decision to set up a no-fly zone was made without a vote in the house or the senate, or even consulting with most Senators and Representatives for that matter.

Does the President have the constitutional power to do this? Voices as disparate as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) agree that this action is clearly a violation of Obama's oath to uphold the constitution. In fact, some feel that this is an impeachable offense. One former Senator and presidential candidate said in 2007, that if then President George Bush unilaterally took military action against Iran, he would move to impeach him. That candidate was Sen. Joe Biden, our current Vice President.

In December 2007, the Boston Globe asked the Presidential candidates

"In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)"

Candidate Barack Obama's response started with

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Absolutely correct, candidate Obama! Now can you please impart this constitutional expertise to President Obama?

To be fair, section 8 of the constitution has been ignored for many administrations. The last American war officially declared by congress was before the Korean war! The U.S. has not fought a war as proscribe by the constitution in my lifetime, and I fear that I might not live to see a constitutionally declared war. But previous presidents have at least had some sort of congressional vote to approve wars that did not involve a threat to the nation. Obama has crossed a new threshold with the Libyan no-fly zone.

Instead of waiting for congressional approval, our President acted on the approval of two other bodies: the United Nation and the Arab League. This is troubling for reasons other than the fact that these bodies have zero congressional authority: neither of these bodies are elected by U.S. citizens. War can impact U.S. foreign relations for generations. The cost of American wars is born by U.S. taxpayers. Our wars also kill many of the our best young people. Given the burden on U.S. citizens, shouldn't war decisions be made by a body elected by these citizens?

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought, in part, to bring democracy to those countries. But who's fighting to bring democracy to America?

The Machinery of Egyptian Freedom

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
- John 8:31-32

"Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystals revelations
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius...
Aquarius!”
- From "Age of Aquarius" by James Rado, Gerome Ragni and Galt Macdermot

Hosni Mubarak's brutal repression of protesters proved to virtually everyone except Vice President Joe Biden that he was a dictator. And like many dictators before him (Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Idi Amin, Bébé Doc, Ferdinand Marcos, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Augusto Pinochet and Mobutu Sese Seko, just to name a few), his own people forced his exit from power. But there is something extraordinary about the overthrow of Mubarak: he was forced out with very little real or threatened violence. In contrast to their government, the Egyptian protesters were astonishingly peaceful.

How did the protesters prevail without engaging in thuggery? The answer may be found in the 1973 book "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman (son of economist and Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman). In this book, David Friedman makes the case for a much smaller government, replacing most forms of state coercion with voluntary arrangements. I learned a lot from this book, even though I do not subscribe to Friedman's rather extreme form of libertarianism. "The Machinery of Freedom" forces the reader to reflect on the assumptions we often make about the need for government power. No wonder that this book made Australia's Institute of Public Affairs list of 20 books that you must read before you die.

Two chapters of this book are quite apropos to the current middle east revolts. In "Revolution is the Hell of It", Friedman rejects violent revolution as a tactic to produce a libertarian state. Violence is counterproductive violation of libertarian principles. The final chapter, "How to Get There From Here", proposes a peaceful alternative to revolution: undermining the state's legitimacy. Even in the worst dictatorships, government power derives mostly from the majority of the population believing in the legitimacy of their leadership. They may dislike their leaders, but they think that only the current leaders can run their country, and that without these leaders, their nation would descend into chaos. As the Milgram experiments demonstrated, the pressure of group conformity can reinforce such a viewpoint. Friedman felt that an overbearing state could be reigned in through a combination of education and demonstration, convincing citizens that they can run their country without sacrificing their freedoms. As Lennon and McCartney wrote in the song "Revolution", "You better free your mind instead".

Is this recipe for peaceful overthrow of a tyrannical state too optimistic? I certainly thought so when first read this book. But consider what happened in Egypt. In a very short period, Mubarak's legitimacy vaporized. Shahira Amin, one of Nile TV' most popular journalists, abruptly quit because her network would only present government propaganda, a violation of her journalistic principles. In the days before Mubarak stepped down, there were a sizable number of policemen that refused to take action against the protesters. So somehow, the Egyptians pulled off Friedman's Utopian vision of how to end government repression.

I doubt that this kind of revolt could have happened in 1973. What made it possible today is a technical breakthrough: social networking. Earlier this year, an Egyptian blogger posted a video of police rape and torture of dissidents. And as Mubarak supporters learned, once a video hits the internet, it never disappears. This video, along with unrest in Tunisia, became popular Facebook topics. Opponents of Mubarak saw that they were not alone in their concerns. Facebook also turned out to be an excellent organizing tool. Recognizing the threat, the government tried cutting off internet access (is that the reason why there is talk in Washington about an internet kill switch?), but the dissidents found ways around this, including going back to dial-up access to foreign internet providers. So remember folks, don't throw away those 56K modems!

From the start of the Mubarak regime until shortly before his downfall, the various U.S. administrations have been solidly behind him. For that reason, it is hard to find an Egyptian protester with a positive word for an American Politician. There is an American, however, who is spoken of quite highly by these protesters: Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook. If anybody gets a Nobel Peace Prize for the handling of the Egyptian crisis, it should be Zuckerberg, but unfortunately it will probably go to some politician instead. But history will remember that Facebook was a very important part in the Egyptian machinery of freedom.

Crossing the Board Game / Electronic Game Divide

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."
- Albert Einstein

"I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly."
- Steven Wright

Video games have dominated the entertainment industry for the last few decades. The video games' older analog equivalent, the board game, has lost favor during this period. The number of board games sold last year was down 10% from the year before. In an attempt to reverse this decline, Hasbro will be releasing hybrid electronic / board games this fall. The first of these will be "Monopoly Live", followed by "Battleship Live".

The Monopoly Live board has a battery powered computer control tower at its center that guides the players through the game. Hasbro contends that this tower's guidance allows a new player to start playing right away without having to first study the rules. The tower provides the following services:

• It takes on the thankless job of banker;
• It computes taxes and mortgage fees;
• It rolls the dice;
  
• It reads the Chance and Community Chest cards (with appropriate sound effects);
• It manages the money electronically (players have ATM cards); and
  
• It runs additional games events such as auctions, horse races and tax audits.

A demo of Monopoly Live can be seen here.

Needless to say, there are purists who object to this merger of traditional gaming and electronics, defending the superiority of analog-based fun. Now I don't dispute that traditional board games can be a lot of fun. When I was a child, video games had not been invented, so my family had fun with classic board games Operation, Mousetrap, Monopoly, Life, Clue, Checkers, Chinese Checkers, and Bridge-It, as well as sadly forgotten games such as Careers and Masterpiece.

But even with these fond memories for the traditional board games, I do not reject the Live board game concept. First of all, the golden age of board games is overrated. When studying the history of a cultural phenomena, such as shopping malls, comic books, network TV, and even retro video games, one often ends up romanticizing the past. One tends to remember the successes and forget the failures. As one who lived through that era, I can vouch that for every classic board game, there were dozens of dull, uncreative games that were not worth playing once. Most of the worst board games were TV or movie tie-in games (The same thing could be said about video games). Our neighbors had a "Dick Tracy" game that was so bad, the only way we managed to have fun with it was to figure out how we could make a good game out of the game board and pieces. Note: if anyone knows of a ROM hacker who has succeeded in making a good video game out of a bad one, please tell us about it in the comments.

These "Live" games will not be the first time that electronics have promoted a board game. Two classic strategy games, Chess and Go, are probably more popular now than any time in history, thanks to the fact that one can play virtually any opponent on the planet in real time, using an internet connection. Computers almost certainly saved the game Othello from extinction. Othello is a much older game than most people realize: it was originally published as Reversi in nineteenth century England. For many decades after its invention, Reversi was known only to a small but enthusiastic group of strategy game enthusiasts. It was not until a PC version of the game, under the name Othello, that the game finally attracted a large following. There are Othello leagues in many nations, as well as international competitions. I doubt if you would be able to buy an Othello set at most game stores if it were not for the PC game.

Computers have made our work life much easier. Since the invention of the Monopoly game, file cabinets have been replaced by databases, typewriters have been replaced with word processors, checks have been replaced with electronic transfers, and postage meters have been replaced with E-mail. All of these changes allow us to do a better job with less effort. But if electronics can make our work life easier, why not use this same technology to make our gaming easier, especially since gaming is supposed to be a recreational activity?

Finally, keep in mind that the point of a board game, or any game for that matter, is to have fun, and these Live games look like they'll be a blast. I'm hoping they are working on a "Clue Live" where the tower gives voice to a detective that sounds like Basil Rathbone.

Texas School Children: Give Choice a Chance

"Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power."
- John Adams

"Teach, your children well
Their father's hell
Did slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they pick's
The one you'll know by."
- From "Teach Your Children" by Graham Nash.

In this third and final post on the Texas school districts that discipline students using the legal system, I would like to focus on one incident from the Texas Appleseed report that exposes the root of many of the problems with American public education:

"A 17-year-old girl with autism became frustrated [in class]. The teacher who best understood how to manage her behaviors was off work that day. The substitute did not know how to respond and accidentally escalated the situation by talking loudly and getting close to the student. The young lady left the classroom without permission, cursed and then sat in the hallway rocking back and forth to calm herself. When the assistant principal heard what happened, he asked a police officer to write a citation for Disruption of Class. The young lady’s single, low-income mother came to the school to talk to the vice principal, explaining that her daughter did not have full control of her behavior and was not able to understand the citation. She also explained she could not pay for citations. The vice principal told the mom that if she did not want her daughter to get more citations, she should withdraw the daughter from school because she was old enough to drop out."

As the father of an autistic son, I find this incident especially appalling. One's first impression is to blame the vice principle for this injustice, but the problem goes beyond this one employee. True, the vice principle did not act in the student's best interest, but he did act in the school's best interest. But why does the school's best interest differ from those of the students? This perverse incentive system is a result of the lack of choice on the part of the student.

In most circumstances, most American public school students have no choice as to which school to attend. Moreover, school financing is generally based on the number of school aged children in the district, not on how many students actually attend the school. The school's budget is not negatively affected by their students switching to private education or home schooling.

We can empower student's families with a change to the way we finance public schools. Instead of allocating education money to the schools, we could these funds to the child, with additional public funds provided for students with special educational needs. The family would then choose which public school their child would attend, and then that school would receive the funding for educating that child. School that attracts more students would receive more financing, schools that loses students would be forced to tighten their belts. Under such a system, could you imagine a vice principle recommending that a student drop out?

Would the Texas system of legal fines for school offenses such a cursing, talking back and skipping classes be adapted in a school choice system? As we have seen, this system has been particularly harsh with racial minorities and the handicapped. These students would undoubtedly exercise their choice for a school that takes a more humane approach to discipline. No family would be forced to endure the Texas ticketing system.

School choice is not just an academic theory. It is practiced in Belgium, France, Sweden, Chile, Ontario, and New Zealand. The countries where choice has been tried get better student test results than American public schools, and get those results at lower cost. This is the unsurprising consequence of families choosing the schools that works best for their children.

When we buy a product like breakfast cereal or a laptop, we insist on having a choice between several providers in order to get the best product. And yet we settle for no choice in a much more important matter: the education of our next generation. Our children deserve better; they deserve a choice.

One final note: my autistic son Jonathan has his own blog, as well as his own YouTube account. He may be constrained by his condition, but that never stops Jonathan from making the most of what he can accomplish. This is what I admire most about him.

Texas School Children: Flex Your Rights!

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- Amendment 4 to the U.S. Constitution

"In 1787 I'm told Our founding fathers did agree
To write a list of principles For keepin' people free"
- From "Preamble", written by Lynn Ahrens for "Schoolhouse Rock"

This site's previous post discussed how some Texas school districts are now enforcing discipline using the criminal justice system. As noted in the Texas Appleseed report, this overly severe form of punishment poses a burden on poor families, is unfair to racial minorities, and adds to the already considerable challenges facing handicapped students. Is there any bright side to this criminalization of student behavior?

Yes there is. The ticketing of Texas students gives us an ideal platform to teach our children the importance of the U.S. constitution. Sadly, most adult Americans are quite ignorant of the workings of our democracy, especially our constitution. Civil libertarian Steven Silverman was shocked to discover how often people would unknowingly waive their constitutional rights, so in 2002 he founded the non-profit educational organization Flex Your Rights to educate the public on their constitutional protections. Flex Your Rights produced the video BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters, which I heartily recommend.

Our schools have been doing a poor job of teaching the constitution. I would recommend that we work with the Flex Your Rights folks to develop a course on the constitution for Texas students. If the Texas school systems refuse to teach the constitution, perhaps Texan libertarians could present constitution lessons outside of school system (think of it as a Texan version of Dumbledore's Army). Armed with the Flex Your Rights curriculum, Texan students could both protect themselves from the excesses of the ticketing system and learn a valuable civics lesson in the process.

For example, the Appleseed report tells of a girl who was given a $200 ticket when a school officer searched her purse and found a cigarette butt. Had she known about the fourth amendment, she would have known that the search could almost certainly be prevented if she politely but clearly told the officer "I do not consent to a search of my purse". Unless the officer has a warrant for searching her purse, any search of her purse would be illegal, the cigarette butt could not be admitted as evidence in court, and the school officer could be be held liable for the illegal search.

The most effective learning technique is to learn by doing. Imagine what students would learn about civics by actually applying the Flex Your Rights curriculum for their own protection. This whole affair could have one really positive effect: a generation of Texas students with a full appreciation of our founding documents.

Texas School Children: Another Brick in the Wall

"I found one day in school a boy of medium size ill-treating a smaller boy. I expostulated, but he replied: 'The bigs hit me, so I hit the babies; that's fair.' In these words he epitomized the history of the human race."
- From "Education and the Social Order" by Bertrand Russell

"When we grew up and went to school, there were certain teachers who would hurt the children anyway they could
by pouring their derision upon anything we did
exposing every weakness however carefully hidden by the kids."
- From "Another Brick in the Wall" by Pink Floyd.

Bullying is major problem in many of our schools. Sometimes, the worst bullies are the grown-ups. A case in point is a novel form of discipline now practiced in several Texas school systems, including Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas. Instead of detention to punish misbehaving students, the school system is using the criminal justice system. A student who disobeys a school rule is given a ticket that his or her family has to pay. Last year, more than 275,000 Texas juveniles were ticketed for such offenses as disrupting class, disorderly conduct or curfew violations (i.e. leaving campus without permission). These tickets are not cheap; when school officials searched a girl's purse and found a cigarette butt, she got a ticket for $200! Some troubled students can rack up several tickets, placing a substantial financial burden on their family.

These tickets have to be taken seriously. These violations are class C misdemeanors, which is serious enough to show up on a criminal record. Of course, a Texas child's criminal record should be wiped clean of these offenses once he or she turns 18, but due to the sheer volume of these tickets, this often isn't done. It gives a whole new meaning to the term "permanent record", doesn't it? Moreover, once a student turns 17, he / she can be arrested for failure to pay the ticket. This actually happened to a 17 year old student from Hidalgo county last year.

The public interest group Texas Appleseed has studied the ticketing of students. Among their findings were:

• tickets were given to children as young as six;
• racial minorities receive a disproportionate number of tickets; and
• a student is much more likely to get a ticket if he / she has a disability.

What is especially appalling about this ticketing is that frequently no allowances are made for when a misbehavior might be caused by a disability. Tickets for using profanity have been given to students suffering from Tourette Syndrome! The Appleseed report has a particularly callous citation of an autistic girl. In the interest of full disclosure, I have an autistic son who has his own blog, making this sort of abuse even more disturbing to me.

All in all, this ticketing system recalls the protest song "Another Brick in the Wall" from Pink Floyd's 1979 Rock opera "The Wall". This song condemns the British school system of enforcing mindless conformity by humiliating any student that deviates from the norm. What better anthem is there for school systems that punishes students for the crime of being born with a disability?

So what should be done to stop this legal harassment of Texas children? I have two proposals that I will present in follow-ups to this post. Stay tuned.

A bonus video: here's a version of "Another Brick in the Wall" that might be more appropriate for Texas.

Coffin Nails and Death Chic

"God's finger touched him, and he slept."
- Alfred Tennyson

"So do the dead, through the lights
The surfin' dead, oooh make it tight
The livin' dead now baby lose their heads
Now baby, doin' the dead"
- From "Surfin' Dead" by the Cramps.

On June 22, the Tobacco Control Act will require that cigarette packages carry larger, more visible warning labels. The FDA has proposed a set of new warnings, which will cover at least 50% of the cigarette pack's display area and portray the negative consequences of smoking in a rather graphic, shocking fashion.

The new labels have been challenged as a violation of property or free speech rights. I object to these labels for an entirely different reason: they are likely to backfire and make cigarettes more appealing. Given that humanity's greatest fear, it may seem surprising that anything can be made more appealing by associating it with the dirt nap. But the "Death Chic" phenomenon is very real, so these warning labels could make cancer sticks hip again.

To illustrate this point, consider the health crisis second only to smoking: the obesity epidemic. Certainly the owner of a grill would avoid any warnings that eating fatty foods like hamburgers could lead to heart ailments, right? Well, you'd think so, but think again. The Heart Attack Grill in Chandler Arizona makes it quite clear that its food is bad for you. It's not just the grill's name or its slogan ("Taste Worth Dying For"): the waitresses are dressed as nurses. The burgers come in three sizes: single bypass, double bypass, and quadruple bypass. Your order is identified by a hospital tag. And in spite of all these warnings, the grill has a large following. Fans from across the globe post to their Facebook page asking when a Heart Attack Grill will open in their country.

And what about that other addictive vice, alcohol? In the 90's, one of hottest vodka brands was "Black Death". Here is a bottle of Black Death in its promotional packaging; as you can see, the distillers have all the chutzpah of the Heart Attack Grill. Eventually, this product was forced off the market, but not by low sales. The regulators at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were horrified by the product, and were even more horrified when the product was a hit. Unlike in the U.K., U.S. regulators never allowed the sale of "Black Death" vodka in its special dark glass, skull-shaped bottle.

In the popular arts, death sells everything from Heavy Metal rock, horror films, and even a cartoon series. So why are so many people attracted to embodiments of our greatest fear? Human behavior is rather complex, but there may be some simple explanations for death chic. Because death is so scary, facing death is a way of coming across as being totally bad-ass. Also, some of our current public heath campaigns have become so shrill that they come across as nagging. To many people, the campaign against obesity has definitely crossed into nagging territory, hence the popularity of the Heart Attack Cafe. It is a way of raising a pudgy middle finger to all the health experts who pester us about what we should eat.

So how do we avoid giving cigarettes an aura of death chic? First of all, don't use king size warning labels. The 50% size labels are the visual equivalent of shouting, and experience on internet forums indicates that shouting is frequently less effective than understatement. And forget the melodramatic "this product will kill you and every one you love for seven generations" messages. The warnings that are more likely to scare off potential smokers would basically say that buying this product makes you a real schmuck. Here are my recommended warnings:

• Bought some cigarettes? Good luck finding a place where you can smoke them.
• Warning: This product will force you to periodically leave your friends to smoke alone in the rain.
• Warning: If you use this product, every cent you spent on cologne and teeth whiteners will be wasted.
• Warning: If you buy this, you'll be paying way too much tax.
• Warning: Being seen with this product will get you labeled as a creepy loser.

And finally, if we could get away with it, the most effective warning label of all would be:

• Warning: The surgeon general has determined that smoking dramatically decreases your chances of getting laid.

After all, any Madison Avenue executive will tell you that sex sells, even more than death.

The Defeat of Anti-Tea Party Paranoia

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me"
- Psalms 23:4

"I'm not afraid (I'm not afraid) to take a stand (to take a stand)
Everybody (everybody) come take my hand (come take my hand)"
- "Not Afraid" by Eminem.

In reaction to a major man-made tragedy, a frightened public will frequently lash out at some group associated with the perpetrator, victimizing many innocent citizens in the process. When an anarchist assassinated president McKinley, there was a mass arrest of anarchists, including those who rejected violence in any form. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we had a similar round-up of Japanese Americans. McCarthyism is another example: anger over Soviet infiltration of the State Department led to a backlash over anyone connected with the Communists, even if that connection was tangential or decades old. One decade ago, American Muslims suffered from the rage over the 9/11 attacks.

As tragic as the shooting Rep. Gabriel Gifford shooting was, we should be grateful that there was not a major retaliation against some group loosely associated with suspect Jared Loughner. Certainly there was an attempt to tar the Tea Party movement with this crime, but fortunately that effort failed.

The effort started with Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's assessment that Loughner was motivated by the Tea Party and talk radio. This assessment came out before he had any time to investigate, and this lack of investigation showed. Jared Loughner has a significant web footprint, and a quick web search would have shown that Loughner was no Tea Partier. For example, on his YouTube account, he lists the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books. In one of his videos, he gleefully shows an American flag burning. Does this sound like the work of a Glenn Beck fan?

The worst example anti-Tea Party paranoia I've seen is a Palm Beach post article by Jose Lambiet where he seriously argues against praising the neurosurgeon who saved Rep. Gifford's life in the hours after her shooting. Why doesn't this doctor deserve our praise? Because, says Lambiet, his parents donated money to Tea Party candidates! This is absurd on multiple levels. First of all, he is holding the children responsible for the actions of their parents; one wonders if he would chastise JFK because his father was a bootlegger. But even if the good doctor had donated money to a Tea Party candidate, so what? The tea Party members running for office are obviously trying to change the system through non-violent means. They may well be wrong on many of their political views, but they are still within their rights to express those views.

Fortunately, quick action by some of our leaders nipped this anti-tea party parania in the bud. Credit for this should go first and foremost to President Barack Obama, who stated within days of the shooting that it would be unfair to blame the Tea Party for the actions of this madman. Rachel Maddow also spoke against using this incident to attack the Tea Party, in spite of her disagreements with them. Conservative activist Lee Doren praised Rachel Maddow for her stance on this matter.

What makes Obama and Maddow's comments so helpful is that both were known for their opposition to the Tea Party, so the public knew that these calls for restraint are based on principle. That may well have staved off a major round of anti-Tea Party paranoia.

I'm not sure if this had any effect on the debate, but you should check out long time progressive activist and frequent candidate Ralph Nader's comments on the Tea Party. Unlike most on the left, he is excited by the election of Tea Party members, because they will actually be allies of the progressives on some important issues. That's right, Lee Doren praised Rachel Maddow and Ralph Nader praised the Tea Party; we better check to see if Hell has any winter snow alerts.