Will America Become Detroit, Part 6: The World Police Turn in Their Badges

"Beware of entangling allances"
-Pres. George Washington

"A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One"
- From "The Pirates of Penzance" by Gilbert and Sullivan

Now that U.S. presidential nominees are decided by primaries, the party conventions have become pointless, predictable bores. They are little more than rallies disguised as deliberative bodies. Both conventions are so scripted that the few moments that stand out are those where some participant tosses down the script and improvises. One of those moments this year came from Senator Rand Paul's Republican convention speech. At a convention where military one-upmanship was the coin of the day, Sen. Paul made the case that to balance our budget, "Republicans must acknowledge that not every dollar spent on the military is necessary or well spent". This is a brave admission; even Democrats such as Leon Panetta argue that even the recent slowing of military spending increases threaten our security. Although Sen. Paul's views on military spending are in the minority, soon the debt crisis will bring these views into the mainstream. When we absolutely must make the hard choices, it will soon come to light that much of our military spending has nothing to do with defending our nation, and some of our military efforts actually damage our security.

Defending Everyone Against Everyone Else

The 2012 U.S. military budget accounts for 41% of all military spending done on this planet. Our military spending is more than that of Russia, China and our NATO allies combined. Why does it cost so much to defend a nation surrounded by two oceans, and bordered by two very friendly neighbors? The answer is that much of the U.S. defense budget goes to defending other nations. America maintains 900 military bases in 130 countries. Our nation has 119,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in South Korea, and 45,000 in Japan. There 44 American military bases in Germany alone. The average American taxpayer pays more for these bases than the average German taxpayer does.

A large part of why the U.S. defense spending is so high is that it includes a huge ersatz foreign aid program where we take on the defense duties of many of our allies. This is a great deal for the countries we defend: their tax burden is lessened, this in turn gives them a competitive advantage over us, and fewer of their young people are asked to sacrifice their lives. But is this a good deal for us? And if not, how did we end up in this situation?

The Diplomatic Equivalents of the Helium Reserve

We are all aware of Department of Defense programs that were continued far beyond any practical purpose. The National Helium Reserve, originally set up to make sure we had helium for our dirigibles, continued until 2007. The horse mounted cavalry was maintained as late as 1942. And don't forget the Mohair subsidies ooriginally enacted during WWI guarantee enough wool for soldiers uniforms. These subsidies continued until recent years, in spite of the fact that no uniforms have been made from mohair for more than half a century.

The State Department has its own share of programs that go on far past the time where their original rationale made any sense. The prime example of this is NATO, started in 1949 to help European nations rebuilding after the devastation of WWII to defend themselves against the Soviet bloc. This treaty was originally intended as a temporary measure, to help out until these nations could defend themselves. Dwight Eisenhower, as NATO Supreme Commander said that “if in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.” As a perfect illustration of the Reagan maxim that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program, NATO is still going strong after more than six decades, long after all the member nations have recovered from WWII, and even long after the Soviet threat has disappeared into history.

A similar situation exists in South Korea. After the end of the Korean war, one could make the case that it was in America's best interest to help our war-torn ally defend herself against communist aggression. But more than half a century later, South Korea now has a GDP 20 times the GDP of North Korea. If South Korea cannot defend herself now, when will she be able to do so?

When Defense Works Against Security

It is bad enough that American taxpayers are forced to pay for defend nations other than their own. What makes matters worse is what the CIA calls blowback, where the unintended consequences of American military ventures actually worsen our security. Major security failures such as 9/11 were retaliations for U.S. wars fought on foreign soil.

What Rand Paul said about defense spending may be controversial in 2012, but as the debt crisis comes to a head and every tax dollar needs to be accounted for, Paul's call for a closer look at defense spending will become more mainstream. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution points out the need to provide for the common defense. But this meant the defense of the United States, not that of the world. It is time to end our role as world policeman, and concentrate on protecting our own citizens.

Will America Become Detroit, Part 5: Debt Will End Corporate Welfare as We Know It

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
- "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
- Frederic Bastiat

The coining of a new word, or the re-introduction of a long dormant word, can often advance our understanding of important issues. A prime example is the word "corporatism" that pervades much of current political discourse to derisively describe economic policies designed around the needs of the present leading corporations. A prime example of corporatism is the bank bailouts of 2008, a bi-partisan policy that eventually were condemned by both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements.

Real Capitalism Versus Crony Capitalism

Before this word gained popularity, many ascribed the attributes of corporatism to free market economics. This is rather ironic: the eighteenth century term for the corporatist ideology is mercantilism. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, strongly refutes the tenants of mercantilism in his opus "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". In a true free market, the government does not show favoritism to the elite corporations. It is the consumer, not the state, that picks winners and losers in a free market economy. Corporatism is not only a highly unfair public policy, it is also poor economic policy. A company favored by corporatism is shielded from competitive pressures, and hence does not make the improvements that the unprotected companies would. Competition has given us the iPhone and Android cell phone technology. Corporatism has given Bangladesh a typewriter industry that survived until this decade.

Corporate Welfare: Supported by Many, Liked by No One

The most outrageous form of corporatism is corporate welfare, where the government actually subsidizes particular businesses. This practice is denounced across the political spectrum, which raises the question as to why it is so prevalent. The problem is that welfare is in the eye of the beholder. Voters often fail to see that aid to the industries that they work in as welfare, and will cast their votes to save that aid.

A prime example of this is our agriculture subsidies, a program that protects farmers' income with price supports that keep domestic food prices artificially high. Our agricultural policy keeps U.S. sugar prices at twice the world level. As a result, candies such as Life-Savers are no longer made in this country. The high sugar prices have also forced American soft drink manufacturers to use high fructose corn syrup in place of sugar. The politically connected farm lobby have also pushed ethanol usage, a real boon for corn farmers but an expensive burden both at the pump and at the grocery store. Ethanol is not even good for the environment; producing ethanol uses more fossil fuel than it replaces, which is why Al Gore no longer endorses it. The only advantage to the ethanol program is that it makes farming more profitable.

Why, in a democracy, do these programs that benefit a few at the expense of the many stay alive for so long? The problem is that we do not directly vote on issues like this; instead, we vote for representatives, who will be voting on many issues. When choosing a representative, voters tend to focus on the few issues that are most important to them. Although most voters believe (correctly) that they would benefit from eliminating corporate welfare, very few voters have that as their top issue. The top issue for most voters is aid for their own industry, i.e. what is clearly corporate welfare to anyone outside that industry. This is why corporate welfare constantly wins elections, in spite of its unpopularity.

Putting Corporate Welfare on the Table

In the battle over corporate welfare, the debt crisis could be a game changer. The federal spend approximately $100 billion per year on corporate welfare, which is more than what it spent on welfare for individuals. When the nation's debt is called, these expenditures has to be on the table. We simply cannot afford to maintain all of these corporate welfare programs. At that point, how can one make a politically viable pitch for saving any of these programs?

In short, the debt crisis will force a type of welfare reform for corporations, similar to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Proponents for the 1996 welfare reform act argued that recipients are better served by being transitioned to some form of self reliance when possible. Soon, it will be widely recognized that this same principle applies to corporations: they should not be dependent on the government.

Will America Become Detroit, Part 4: The End of the Victimless Crime Spree

"Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could."
- William F. Buckley, Jr.

"Oh what a delight to
Be given the right to
Be care free and gay once again"
- From "Cocktails for Two" by by Arthur Johnston and Sam Coslow

Some of humanity's greatest advances emerged from severe crises. As bad as the looming U.S. debt crisis is, it will force badly needed reforms in our criminal code. This nation devotes and a tremendous amount of resources prosecuting victimless crimes, especially the war on drugs. This relentless pursuit of adults engaging in consensual behavior is wasteful, ineffective, and frequently violates our civil liberties. But this particular form of government overreach will almost certainly end, and it will do for a rather mundane reason: the state simply won't have the funds to continue.

Prohibition Repeal as the Ultimate Rent Party

There is a historical precedent for the immanent demise of most victimless crimes. Consider the Volstead act, commonly known as prohibition. This forerunner of the war on drugs banned intoxicating alcoholic beverages. Even though the failures of this act became apparent soon after the act's passage in 1919, it was not repealed until 1933. What happened in 1933 that finally did in the Volstead act?

In part, prohibition was ended by the great depression. At a time when the economic downturn was drying up tax revenue, governments were saddled with the substantial costs of enforcing prohibition. Moreover, keeping bars and liquor closed also closed off a badly needed source of tax revenue. When it became clear that prohibition could only be continued by asking an impoverished public to tighten their belts still further, the prohibition repeal effort passed overwhelmingly.

The Volstead Act on Crack

If 1930's depression era America found prohibition too dear a luxury, then twenty-first century debt crisis America will almost certainly reject its even more expensive offshoot, the war on drugs. Essentially, the war on drugs is the Volstead Act on Crack. Consider these expenses:

Jail House Rock

Key element of the war on drugs is harsh minimum sentences for drug offenses and extremely aggressive enforcement. Since President Nixon kicked off the war on drugs in 1971, American incarceration rates have more than quadrupled. We now hold the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world. We have more prisoners than all of China, which has four times our general population. We jail a larger portion of our black population than did Apartheid era South Africa.

The costs of all these prisoners is straining state budgets.
California pays $45,563 a year to keep a man in prison, so now the Golden state spends more on jails than it does on universities. And that does not even could the loss of tax revenue from taking these prisoners out of the economy. Longitudinal studies show an even greater expense: those serving lengthy drug sentences are less likely to ever become a productive member of society.

In the past, the mantra of the drug warrior has been that it is important to "send a message" to users of illicit drugs. But as states such as California and Michigan face the threat of default, they are bound to ask if we could please send this message via Western Union.

Putting the War into "The War on Drugs"

The war on drugs quickly took up a large portion of law enforcement efforts at all levels. It even has its own enforcement agency, the DEA, which has spend $536 billion on drug enforcement since its inception in 1973. (See the suitable tacky DEA museum gift shop). But victimless crimes are notoriously hard to enforce. When this effort fell short, harsher tactics such as SWAT teams and no-knock raids were tried. Some police departments have even acquired military equipment from the DOD. When they called it the "War on Drugs", they were not kidding!

Like most wars, this one has had plenty of collateral damage. There have been raids on the wrong house that have resulted in innocent people or even pets getting shot. To be fair, raids on real drug dealers are highly dangerous operations, so police are bound to make mistakes in these high stress situations. But this is a danger of our own making. The day prohibition was repealed, the bootlegger gangs went out of business, and with their demise, there was a marked decrease in gang violence. Drug decriminalization would likely have the same effect, saving us both money and lives.

Too Poor to Keep Screwing Up

Due to budget constraints, Detroit has had to make cuts in its police force. In order to protect themselves, some of this city's citizens have formed a citizen's group called Detroit 300 that patrols the streets that Detroit's finest used to patrol. Not surprisingly, all the crimes that Detroit 300 deal with are crimes with victims: rape, robbery, assult, murder, etc. They are not chasing down dope smokers. When hard choices have to be made, enforcing victimless crimes is the first thing to go.

As the nation's debt crisis comes to a head, we will forced to take the same approach as Detroit 300. There are many better reasons to end the war on drugs, but it will definitely end for one reason: we cannot afford it. Lack of funds will force our government to do the right thing.

Speaking of victimless crimes, check out the documentary Derrick J's Victimless Crime Spree, where one activist gets into an amazing amount of legal trouble for peaceably protesting his local public officials.

Will America Become Detroit, Part 3: Paul Ryan, Rambo, and J. Alfred Prufrock

"We fail far more often by timidity than by over-daring."
- Ray Stannard Baker

"Do I dare eat a peach?"
- From "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T. S. Eliot

The most controversial deficit reduction plan was put forward by Wisconsin Representative and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan. In 2008, he introduced H. R. 6110, entitled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008", as a plan to balance the budget and create jobs. This proposal has garnered both high praise and scathing condemnation.

• Democratic co-chair of President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform called the Ryan plan “sensible, serious . . , and honest”.
• In April at an Associated Press Luncheon, President Obama denounced Ryan's plan as "nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism."
• New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote "Today, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is scheduled to release the most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes"
• Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have blasted the Ryan plan, writing that it fails to meet a basic moral test.

As is often the case, the truth lies between the extremes. Paul Ryan's plan would not produce a future ripped from the pages of Oliver Twist. On the other hand, the plan would also not succeed in its primary mission of eliminating the deficit. The reason why the Ryan proposal would fail is that, contrary to what both his supporters and critics contend, this plan is actually too timid to be effective. Contrary to popular rhetoric, the senator who is likened to Rambo is much closer to J. Alfred Prufrock. 

Bill Clinton, Social Darwinist?

One of the more popular attacks on the Ryan plan is that it would cut spending much too quickly, threatening our fragile economic recovery. President Obama even went so far as to call the plan a "prescription for decline". Everyone agrees that spending cuts are inevitable, but Obama asserts that these cuts must be done more gradually to preserve both the safety net for the poor and this nation's greatness.

This argument focuses its line of attack on the notion that Ryan's plan spends considerably less than recent federal budgets, a major talking point for the plan's proponents. So how does the Ryan plan compare to federal spending levels, or for that matter, how does it compare to Obama's proposal? An analysis of the numbers shows how Washington's definition of a cut differs from the rest of the nation: the only sense in which Ryan's budget for the next 10 years can be considered a "cut" is in the sense that spending will not increase a fast as politicians originally planned:

• Even after adjusting for inflation, Ryan's plan for the each of the next ten years would be 46% higher than Bill Clinton's last budget; and
• In this 10 year period Ryan plan spends only 5% less than Obama's proposed budget.

If Paul Ryan is a Social Darwinist, wouldn't that make Bill Clinton one as well? And if we are to believe that the Ryan plan would put us on the path to decline, why should we have any confidence in a plan that only differs from the Ryan by only 5%?

Voting for the Party That Will Throw Granny Off a Cliff

The most contentious issue with the Ryan Plan is the entitlement program reforms. As an alternative to the current defined benefit program, Ryan proposed block granting the program, and an opt-out for younger people who wish to vest in private retirement plans instead of Social Security and Medicare.

The imminent debt crisis has finally forced a senator to touch the "third rail" of American politics. And predictably, his opponents have played upon the public's fear of changes in these popular programs. The Agenda Project produced an infamous ad depicting Paul Ryan throwing an old woman off a cliff. The Romney campaign responded by producing its own ad, attacking Obama's plans to divert Medicare "savings" to pay for Obamacare. So which party will really preserve Medicare as we know it?

The honest answer is neither party: no matter who wins the elections here and in the next few decades, our entitlement programs as we know them will come to an end, period. These programs are completely and utterly unsustainable. As early as 2008, the trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare place their unfunded liability (that is, what they are obligated to pay out minus anticipated revenue) at $101 trillion. Given that our annual GDP is around $14 trillion, this is a hole that even a 100% tax rate cannot fill. A health care economist put the Medicare situation in far stronger language (warning: possibly NSFW) here.

Ryan's plan is probably insufficient to fix the entitlement crisis, but it is better than the current administrations' non-plan. In reality, the most likely outcome for the entitlement programs is that they will become means tested. But saying that is not politically popular (ask Ron Paul and Gary Johnson), so the two major party candidates will continue to argue over which one will push granny off the cliff.

Watching the Glaciers Speed By

For all the hoopla about the rapidity of the Paul Ryan's cuts, what is amazing is how agonizingly slow this plan is in terms of solving the debt crisis. CBO projections show that the plan won't even produce a balanced budget until 2040. Even this is based on optimistic assumptions, such as that no other national crises will arise in the next 28 years, and that congress will remain committed to this plan for nearly three decades. Part of the problem is that Senator Ryan has his own sacred cows: he leaves the budgets for defense and the war on terror untouched. Given the severity of the debt problem, everything should be on the table. The Pentagon and the Office of Homeland Security both have a lot of waste that could be eliminated.

To really fix the debt crisis, what is needed is a plan far more bold than the Ryan plan. But since Washington views this plan as reckless, what will actually be implemented is something weaker, and therefore even more inadequate, than the Ryan plan. This is the strongest evidence yet that no serious remedy will be attempted until it is too late, i.e. in financial terms, America will become Detroit.

What we are facing is nothing short of default of our nation. Granted, the consequences of this will be terrible: treasury bonds are frequently purchased because of their reputation for stability. Many who are depending on these bonds, including some who were dependent on them for their retirement, will be devastated. But there will be a few upsides to this crisis, as will be detailed in the next installments.

Will America Become Detroit, Part 2: Popular Solutions That Are Bound to Fail

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
- H. L. Mencken

"In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back."
- Charlie Brown, from Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz

The U.S. government debt crisis has garnered enough attention that pundits from across the political spectrum have weighed in on the issue by proposed solutions that are pleasing to their core constituencies. As we look at these proposals, it is easy to see why they are crowd pleasers, but they all have one serious defect: they won't solve the problem.

Don't Worry, Be Happy: S&P Says We're OK

One popular solution to America's debt crisis is to contend that the problem does not really exist. CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria summarized this point of view as "America is not Greece". Debt crisis skeptics content that America is prosperous, competitive, and has a high bond rating, hence she should have no problem borrowing money at reasonable rates for the foreseeable future.

The problem with debt crisis denial should have become clear with the financial crisis of  4 years ago: bond ratings, along with other measures of credit worthiness, can change blindingly fast. Standard & Poor's rated Lehman Brothers AAA 72 hours before they filed for bankruptcy. And as late as December of 2009, Moody's rated Greek bonds a high A, only to drop that rating to Junk level in the following months. So three years ago, we could have argued that "Greece is not Greece"!

The ratings from firms such Moody's, Fitch, and S&P are merely numerical measures of human trust in the institutions being rated, hence they can change just as quickly as our emotions change. If creditors change their opinion of American credit worthiness, the ratings may change even faster than they did for Lehman Brothers and Greece, due to one disquieting fact in the back of investors' minds: the U.S. government is too big to be bailed out by anyone.

Denial of the debt problem is a temporarily comforting, but ultimately dangerous, solution. One needs to look at the Motor City to see how it plays out. America may not be Greece, but it may very well be Detroit.

Eat the Rich!

Michael Moore, among others, want us to balance the budget by raising taxes on the rich. This method has tremendous appeal, for everyone assumes that "rich" means "people who make more money than me". Wouldn't it be great if the debt could be paid off purely by stereotypical Thurston Howell III millionaires who need only sacrifice a few yachts and mansions?

Michael Moore's "Eat the Rich" solution plays well, but would it actually fix the problem? Michael Moore doesn't run the numbers, but Veronique De Rugy at George Mason university has. Her study of historical U.S. revenue data, from 1930 to 2010, shows that the government has generally has been unable to raise more than 19% of the GDP in taxes. The few times we have been able to raise 20% of the GDP in taxes has been a few years at the peaks of boom cycles. This data include the Halcyon days of the 1950's, when the highest federal tax bracket was over 90%. In short, our government is already raising close to the maximal amount of money it can raise, no matter what we do with rates.

Upping the tax rates on the highest earners can have some rather nasty negative consequences. The rich are not all Thurston Howell III clones; they also include some of the world's best developers and entrepreneurs. Excessive taxes might encourage these people to move elsewhere, and the economic activity that they would generate will move with them. This happened in 1960's Britain, where 95% tax rates caused the "brain drain", where the best British minds went overseas to protect their wealth. The "brain drain" phenomenon even inspired a Beatles song.

Well, desperate times call for desperate measures. Maybe we need to be even tougher on the rich than America was in the 1950's or Britain was in the 1960's in order to raise the money we need. Again, this scenario does not hold up once you run the numbers. Fellow blogger iowahawk computes what we could raise by the most extreme "Eat the Rich" tax schemes, including taxing 100% of all income above $250K, confiscation all the wealth of America's richest families, and all the profits of our largest companies; he finds that even these most extreme measures will just barely cover this year's budget, with no hope of covering next year's.
When you do the math, it turns out that the only way we could possibly maintain our current level of spending would be to tax the middle class so much that they would be forced to lower their standard of living. Don't hold your breath waiting for a politician to tell you that.

Next Time

In the next FatherBrain post, we look at the controversial Paul Ryan plan (I think Sen. Ryan had his first name legally changed to "controversial"). The usual complaint is that this plan cuts spending too sharply. This post will make the case that the real problem with the Ryan plan is that it does not cut enough.

Will America Become Detroit?

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
- Hamlet Act 1, scene 3

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"
- From "Sixteen Tons" by Merle Travis

Detroit News editorial writer Shikha Dalmia has written a sobering op-ed about my former home town's financial crisis. Detroit's leaders seem to be in a state of denial about the severity of the problem. This Op-Ed argues that bankruptcy may be the best option for Detroit, since it would force the changes needed to get the city's debt under control.

It is sad to see what has happened to this once great city, but it is hardly surprising. The city has been spending far beyond either current or projected revenue for many years now. Bowing to political pressure, the city council has been kicking the can down the road for as long as possible. But now, they have run out of road.

But those from other American cities should neither scorn nor pity the city of Detroit. The nation as a whole are following the same trajectory that Detroit followed years ago. So what prevents our country from meeting the same fate as this tragic city? Neither party has offered a serious plan for getting government debt under control. We hear a lot about climate change denialism, but this nation's undoing may well turn out to be deficit denialism.

Wait a Minute! Didn't We Fix This in the 90's?

As late as the last years of the Clinton administration, our government was not running up the deficit. Today, a third of all federal spending is borrowed. How did this our nation go so far wrong in the last 12 years? To answer this question, let us compare the year 2000 budget to this year's budget. Adjusting for inflation (2012 dollars) and population growth,

• In 2000, the government took in $2.5 trillion dollars and spent $2.0 trillion; and
• In 2012, our nation will take in $2.4 trillion dollars and spend $3.8 trillion. 

Revenue is down from 2000, but given how much weaker the economy is now, what is really surprising is that the revenue is not down even further. Spending, on the other hand, has gone out of control. Even after adjusting for population and inflation, spending has nearly doubled. If our government spent at year 2000 levels, we would still have a budget surplus.

In short, the problem is spending, not revenue. But spending cuts are more popular in the abstract than they are in practice, hence neither major party has put out serious proposals for reigning in the red ink.

Is Our Situation That Bad? No, It's Even Worse!

As the national debt clock so vividly displays, the U.S. federal deficit is rapidly approaching $16 trillion. But as stunning as that figure is, it is only a small part of our shared indebtedness. This figure does not include the unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The unfunded liabilities of these two programs dwarf the $16 trillion figure. The 2012 Medicare trustees report estimates a shortfall of $27 trillion, and the 2012 Social Security trustees report places its unfunded liability at $8.6 trillion. And these trustees reports estimates are on the conservative side!

Another debt problem that U.S. governments, at all levels, have woefully underfunded their pension plans.We have seen the trouble this creates in California, Wisconsin, New Jersey, as well as Detroit. As the baby boom start retiring in droves, this problem will trigger more municipal bankruptcies. And the feds will not have the money to bail them out.

The Lighter Side of Default

We have general agreement that our current spending is unsustainable. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to identify the debt crisis as the greatest threat to our nation's future. My next post will look at both party's (wholly inadequate) proposed solutions. But at this point, it is safe to say that, irrespective of who wins in November, this crisis will be dealt with the same way it was in Detroit: at the very last minute, using desperate measures. But cheer up: the impending U.S. default may be very painful in the short run, but it will force some very positive changes in our governance. Follow up posts will explain why the coming storm will be followed by brighter days. Watch this space.

Speaking for the Left-Handed Majority

"But when you do your giving, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"
- Matthew 6:3

"Some people are right-handed. Some people are left-handed. There are other people who are able to use both hands with equal ease. Such people are called Handbidextrous."
- Sally Brown in "Peanuts" by Charles M. Schulz

Of all the traits that evolution bestowed on humans, our dexterity is one of the most valuable. Yes, human intelligence and communication are quite essential to our species success, allowing us to create thoughts that can be shared widely and passed down through generations. But we would not be able to readily turn those thoughts into tools without the imposable thumb. Due to the value of our dexterity, one of the more important differences between humans is handedness. The majority of humans primarily use their right hands, and this is reflected throughout our culture and technology. The vast majority of languages are written from left to right. In most countries, traffic travels on the right side of the road, drivers are seated on left, and hence the gear shift is operated with the driver's right hand. Most desks, computer mice, scissors and watches are designed for the right handed. Most cameras are ridiculously right-handed.

The left-handed live in a world not designed for them, and yet many of them become quite accomplished:

• Southpaws that have excelled in the arts include Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Toulouse Lautrec, and M.C. Escher;
  
• The music world has benefited from left-handed artists such as Beethoven, Prokofiev, Mozart, Cole Porter, Judy Garland, David Bowie, and the two surviving Beatles;
  
• Scientists Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Albert Schweitzer, and Alan Turing were left handed; and
  
• U.S. Presidents Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all won elections from a largely right-handed electorate.

So what percentage of the population is left-handed? This is a hard question, complicated by factors such as how to count the ambidextrous or those who have trained themselves to use the other hand. Depending on how you them, 10% to 20% of the population is left-handed. But in a more general sense, one could make the case that the vast majority of us are left handed. Each individual has some characteristics that differs from the majority, and these differences often have the downside of making it hard for said individual to "fit in". In this sense, virtually all of us are all left-handed.

The simple concept of the left-handed majority provides a pragmatic justification for tolerance. Every time you accommodate someone else's differences, you strengthen the social contract and hence advance acceptance of your own differences.

I am an unlikely spokesman for the left-handed majority. For one thing, I am right-handed. I am also a white heterosexual male and married with two offspring. On the other hand (pardon the expression), I am a member of a political minority (libertarians) and a religious minority (Unitarian-Universalism). This may seem like an odd combination. There is the common perception that libertarians are just conservatives who smoke marijuana. There is also the perception and that Unitarian-Universalist churches are the last refuge for Woodstock hippies. So how can an ersatz conservative join a granola church?

In part, I would answer this question by pointing out that these common perceptions are wrong. For the record, I am not a conservative, and the last time I smoked marijuana was back when disco music was not retro. But for the most part, I am a member of both these organizations due to some common themes. Libertarianism emphasizes freedom as the core political value of modern society. Unitarian-Universalists promote freedom of thought as a core religious value. Moreover, both groups celebrate our individuality, libertarians in the political sphere, Unitarian-Universalists in the religious realm. This is why I am a libertarian Unitarian-Universalist: I am doing it for the left-handed majority.

Update: check this Facebook page for more libertarian Unitarian-Universalists.

Hitchens and Kim Jong-il prove: "Screw 'em If They Can't Take a Joke!"

"And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
- Matthew 23:12

"Be a clown, be a clown,
All the world loves a clown
Be a poor silly ass
And you'll always travel first-class"
- From "Be A Clown", lyrics by Cole Porter

The year 2011 ended with two notable celebrity deaths:

1. British-American journalist and gadfly Christopher Hitchens died of pneumonia on December 15; and
2. Kim Jong-il, the man who held the title of North Korean Supreme Leader (along with many other titles) died of a heart attack on December 17.

To put the lives of these men in perspective, I correct a theory of Hitchens, and apply this corrected theory to the late "Beloved Leader" of North Korea. Hitchens placed the blame for much of the world's evils on religion, but a closer examination reveals that the blame more accurately belongs to the ancient vice of vanity.

For centuries, religious leaders have attacked atheism as promoting unethical behavior. These leaders argued that without the reward of Heaven or the threat of Hell, what incentive is there for an atheist to behave morally? Hitchens, along with many atheists authors, have correctly pointed out that this argument is erroneous and unfair. There are many good reasons for practicing morality besides the afterlife, and there are many atheists who lead ethical lives. Hitchens is right on this point, but then he advanced his own variant on this attack. As he said in a debate with Mark Roberts:

"There’s a great deal of wickedness that’s attributable purely to religious belief. Morally normal people wouldn’t do these things if they didn’t think God was desiring them to do so."

So instead of arguing that ethics require a belief in God, Hitchens argues that one should not believe in order to live an ethical life. Hitchens' position has many of the same mistakes as the anti-atheist position he attacked. There are plenty of rationalizations for bad behavior besides the "God made me do it" excuse. Moreover, some of the greatest moral outrages of the twentieth century (the Soviet Gulags, the Cultural Revolution, the East German Stasi) were carried out by Marxists who opposed religion.

Hitchens frequently encountered the issue of Marxist immorality in debates, and he had a novel response to this issue. He argued that the Soviet, Maoist, and North Korean regimes, in spite of their official atheist positions, were really religions! Christopher posits that the founding members of these failed states are viewed as gods or prophets, and hence these Marxist atrocities are yet more examples of holy terror. Now granted, some communist states have rituals that are reminiscent of cult religions, such as the Soviet's extraordinary efforts to preserve Lenin's body. But the square peg of communism simply does not fit into the round hole of religion, at least as how Hitchens and Marx defined it. Consider Engals' eulogy for Marx, taught in all the major communist countries: "On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think." Such a statement makes it clear that Engals did not believe that Marx had an afterlife. Now if the communists are going to accept anyone as god, they would certainly regard Karl Marx as divine. And if they were to do so, they must conclude that their god is dead!

Christopher Hitchens is not here to defend his theory that religion is the root of most of the world's atrocities, but we can do the next best thing by fixing this theory's flaws. The real common factor to the most repressive states is a belief that their leadership is incapable of error, and therefore should be exempt for criticism. Now if your state's leadership is claiming to be God's exclusive agent on planet Earth, fostering this belief is that much easier. But as the cults of Fidel Castro and Kim Jung-il demonstrate, one can obtain such blind devotion without religion.

What these repressive regimes really lack is humility, that is, a good-natured admission that they have faults, just like the rest of us. In other words, they lack a sense of humor. Consider Kim Jung-il. He has read many a somber, scholarly criticisms of his rule. As an avid film buff, he has seen dramas and action pictures with North Korean villains. But there is only one Western work that so offended Kim Jung-il that he had North Korean embassies request that the work be banned: the film "Team America: World Police", the marionette picture made by the creators of "South Park". He realized that other critiques would do him no lasting harm, but that anyone who laughs at the Kim Jung-il puppet is unlikely to accept the real Kim as an infallible ruler. For similar reasons, Adolph Hitler was distressed by the Chaplin film "The Great Dictator". One wonders what Hitler would have thought of the many YouTube "Downfall" videos.

For this reason, we should be grateful for the current trend where our politicians appear on comedy shows, such as Jay Leno. There are now several shows ("The Daily Show", "Red Eye") that combine politics and humor. Political humor does more than provide us with some much needed laughs; it helps us keep our leaders in perspective, and by doing so, it protects our freedom.

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?