Eat A Candy Bar, Go To Jail.

In D.C., a woman was arrested for eating a one bite of a candy bar in a subway station. Yes, I'm glad that our nation's capitol gives the impression that we live in a police state.

Gerry of ECB 2004 said:

"Cops like this do a great disservice to the rest of the police."

I responded,

"Outrageous...but it doesn't sound like it is the cop's fault as much as it is Metrorail's."

My brother's shirt inspired a post...

My brother's shirt reminded me of another comparison of religions which is based upon this amazing pamphlet. Other thought-provoking pamphlets from the same source include a comparison between science and religion, a rebuttal to the theory of the watchmaker and a condemnation of Fred Phelps and his intolerance. While you are there, you can also check out the Evolve-O-Matic.

My Dad's New Favorite Quote

"Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But what these guys do is worse: they found out what worked over 150 years of American history and decided to change it."
--my dad, at tonight's FEE meeting

FEE Free Public Lecture

I just saw an amazing lecture at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). Dr. Bruce Caldwell gave a talk on Friedrich von Hayek and economic methodology entitled "Hayek's Challenge". I know, 'economic methodology' doesn't sound all that interesting, but I found the speech to be facinating. Dr. Caldwell is also a good speaker...too often people, particularly academic types, might have interesting things to say, but they can't say them well.

FEE tends to have great lectures, but that isn't my favorite part. My favorite part is talking to the other people there. It is so refreshing to talk to people who share the same premises: freedom is good, freedom is a right, freedom works. I have spent most of my life surrounded by people who don't hold these ideals, insead thinking things like: 'freedom is good in certain circumstances', 'freedom is only a right on social (rather than economic) issues', 'freedom might work but socialism would work better given the right circumstances'. This also means that the level of the conversation has to be at a lower level: we have to argue over the premises first.

Free Speech

Campaign Finance Reform^TM has been claimed to be the way to keep all that dirty money out of politics.

But it severely limits free speech.  More than that, it limits the exact type of free speech that founders intended the First Amendment to protect: political speech.

One of the problems with speaking has always been making sure others hear you.  In the days of the founding fathers, this meant coming up with money (yourself or through a generous benefactor) for a printing press or the right to use someone else's.  These days, since buying an entire newspaper or tv network is cost-prohibitive, it tends to mean advertisements. 

And, if you think about it, it is only fair.  A journalist can write a scathing editorial for a nationally syndicated column and not run afoul of Campaign Finance Reform^TM; however an individual, commitee of concerned citizens, the candidate himself, or others whose paths have not led them to become journalists cannot purchase an ad in the same space without being subject to a multitude of restrictions.  Just because a person's talents are more suited to becoming an accountant than a writer is no reason to deny him his only chance at making his opinions public.

And what's so dirty about donated money anyway?  The system we have set up makes it imperative that the candidate be able to fund much of the start-up costs of a campaign on his own...that means it should surprise no one that both candidates for president have a great deal of personal wealth.

This is bad on a local level too.  Incumbents have an advantage, simply because voters have heard of them before (and the re-election rate in the House is in the high 90s). A challenger must spend a great deal of money just to get voters to know who he is.  And limits on donations means that he must be independently wealthy...

*     *     *

 

But maybe I'm over-reacting.  After all, groups like MoveOn.org and other 527s are accepting the challenge and taking advantage of the new laws: no loss of money in the campaigns and the money is harder to track besides...

Manufacturing in the U.S.

...is a bad idea.

Today, on Morning Sedition, the Marks reported that John Kerry wanted to encourage manufacturing in the U.S.  They thought that this was a great idea.  "And," they said, "it isn't as though you can pay an American worker the same amount you would pay a worker on an assembly line in Beijing.  No, here in America you have to pay a living wage."

Do they not notice the fundamental contradiction between these two thoughts?

America has less manufacturing than lesser-developed nations because, for the most part, Americans are too valuable to 'waste' in that matter...one of the reasons why America is leading in the service industries.  Our labor is valuable...you want to make sure that we get the most bang for our buck.

On a related note:
When someone close to me went to Cuba, he was shocked, shocked, that, when something like a cheap toaster broke down, his hosts would take it to be repaired.  The repairman would spend an hour to repair it.  The repairman's labor was infinitely cheaper than the $10 toaster. 

In Cuba, labor is cheap and goods are expensive.

In America, it is the other way around.  That's something to be happy about.

Whining about Whiners

Today's Morning Sedition show was considerably less enjoyable than usual.  One of the Marks (don't know which one) kept yelling, complaining and basically carrying on about 'Republican whiners'.  Apparently, 'Republican whiners' are Republicans who complain that there is Bush-bashing going on at the DNC Convention.

I find that an interestng definiton.  Apparently anyone who complains that their candidate is being 'bashed' (regardless of whether or not it seems to be happening) is a whiner. 

Now, I haven't listened to more than clips of the speeches at the convention, so I'm hardly in a position to state definitively whether or not there is bashing going on.  At the same time, I don't doubt that certain people are going to complain of bashing if anyone says so much as one semi-critical word about their candidate.  But I also don't doubt that certain people (frequently the same sort as the automatic complainers) will bash the other guy's candidate with no basis in reality (comparing Bush to Hitler immediately comes to mind).

And the Mark kept repeating the same thing (in an annoying baby-voice) something along the lines of 'ooh, the liddle George Bush is the war president but he needs people to protect him from debate'.  Huh?  Where did that come from?  All that he said was happening was that some people were whining about Bush-bashing (in a forum, by the way, where the president had no access to 'debate' any of the points), not that a source from the administration or the Bush campaign were making the complaints. 

Sounds more like he's whining about free speech than about actual campaign problems...

My brother's home!

As I mentioned in this post, my little* brother just got back from France a few hours ago.  He was on a month-long trip with other American students (from all over the U.S.).  They were touristy at the beginning and end and each stayed with a host family during the middle.  It is fantastic to see him, despite the fact that he was obviously tired (it was the equivalent of 4:30am for him).

He also told me a about his trip, his host family and the people of France.

Things I found particularly interesting:

• The French have a completely different way of relating to children.  Obedience is an virtue.  Parents demand it, even of the very young...so much so that when kids get a little bit of freedom they "go crazy".
• Hitler ordered Paris destroyed in the waning days of WWII.  One man prevented the distruction (by letting Hitler think it had taken place as ordered).
• People would frequently tell him and the other American teens that they "didn't hate Americans, just George W. Bush".
• The "work ethic" (his words, not mine) was totally different.  Stores would close during in the middle of the day; if he tried to go in (before they actually indicated they were closed), he would be shooed away.  In restaurants, neither the waitresses nor the owners seemed particularly interested in serving him.

Each of these things is worthy of a long post of its own and I hope to talk more in depth about them soon.

^{*Yes, I realize he is 18, I know he is starting college in, like, a month, but he always has been and always will be my baby brother.}

THK is an AA

Several people on liberal blogs/talk radio think they are being really clever by saying that Teresa Heinz Kerry would be the first African-American first lady.  I have news for them.  You've been scooped.  Not only have conservatives (including James Taranto of the WSJ) mentioned this months ago, they usually have been called bigots by liberals for doing so.

I'll post a link later about a ZT case on this exact issue.

Update: Here's the link I promised you.

Air France

I'm stuck in the airport, so my dad (thanks daddy!) is typing everything that I relay by cellphone.  Why an I stuck here? Because Air France sucks. 

My brother is coming back (yay!) after being in France for a month.  My mom and I called before we left, but their system was down, and they provided no alternative way to verify arrival times.  So, when we got here, we found that the flight was to be one hour late.   

Not much tonight...

I'm tired and I didn't get much interesting info today...everyone was talking about the convention, but they were mostly repeating one another, or else talking about very basic news (and if you want basic news, read a newspaper/watch the news/google it yourself).

Things that I did think were interesting:

• No one can agree whether or not the Clintons gave good speeches last night, and I'm not just talking about the liberal/conservative divide either.  Even if I ignore all the conservatives, the liberals were split, even to such things as who had the better speech.




• Part of a speech, made by a gunner from John Kerry's ship, was played.  It sounded pretty good...but I was bothered by his need to point out that all the good things he was saying about Kerry didn't mean that either he or Kerry supported the Vietnam War.  This bothered me because the Vietnam War was controversial, everyone (even youngin's like me) knows that.  Why did he feel the need to point that out in a speech that wasn't about the merits of or reasons behind that war?  He was talking about someone making the best of a bad situation...why the extraneous sentence?  The only reason I could think of was that someone told him "while we want Kerry to appear strong on defense, you better not piss off the anti-war crowd".




• Someone (a conservative) read a transcript of what Ted Kennedy said in a speech about a week after Chappaquiddick. Remember, I'm only 22. I knew the story, but I'd never heard this before. I'm going to need to think about it for a while before I'm ready to write about it.




• Apparently, Mark Pasquale isn't the only small business owner losing money due to the convention. Isn't the reason that cities host conventions is that they plan to make money? I hope the hotels are doing well, at least.

Update: Censorship and Comparisons

A thought occurred to me in the middle of the night:

Many made a big deal over the fact that Linda Ronstadt, Whoopi Goldberg and other celebrity types were being 'censored' for their opinions.  But, given that true censorship is when the government can force, coerce or limit what you say due to its abilities to impose civil or criminal penalties, it wasn't really censorship; what was actually happening was that individuals were using their own rights to freedom of expression to express the fact that they disapproved of the statements made.

What happened to Mark Pasquale was true censorship.  The government used its ability to impose penalties to try to limit his freedom of expression with respect to political speech.

Why isn't there the same level of outrage?

The DNC: Continuing to piss off small businesses

I already linked to the story of Mark Pasquale, pizzeria owner who's shop is across the street from Fleet Center, where the Boston Convention is being held.  Between security and the fact that participants get free food, Mr. Pasquale is losing a week of business.  That's right, on a week when something on the order of 30,000 delegates and members of the press are a stone's throw away from his store, he will lose sales. 

That's outrageous enough.

But, when he expressed his displeasure by putting up a sign stating, "SAY!!!!! D.N.C. THANKS FOR NOTHING!!!  GO BUSH", he was cited for violating Boston's sign ordinance.

For expressing his basic right to free speech, he is told he will need to pay a fine or take it down.

Amazingly, he is a strong enough person to agree to pay what amounts to extortion in order to express his political opinions, saying "I’m not taking it down. It’s staying. I’ll pay the fine." 

Bravo, Mr. Pasquale.  Next time I'm in Boston, I am stopping at your shop.

If anyone wants to join me, it's at 115 Causeway St., Boston, MA 02114

An Open Letter to Randi Rhodes

Hey Randi,

I listen to you every day on my commute home...and something has been bothering me.  It usually doesn't quite crystalize, but today, you did it so often that I figured out what it was.

You keep mentioning Sean Hannity.  Every couple of minutes, you mentioned him as an evil conservative, as the recipient of mysterious talking points, as someone who got a better position at the Convention than you...His show is at the same time as yours, he's your competition and you keep giving him free advertising.  I don't get that.

And, while we're on the subject of things you kept repeating today...what's with the complaints about your place at the convention?  You kept complaining that people from conservative media (and, well, everybody else) had better spots than you did. 

Honestly, it sounded like sour grapes.  I mean it's the Democratic National Convention.  They aren't trying to screw their supporters. 

At the same time, they have an interest, as do you, in having well-known personalities cover the convention.  Interviews with well-known personalities are better for the interviewee than interviews with a relative unknown.  Sadly Randi, that's what you are.  You mention Sean Hannity on your show almost every day (and usually more than once per show), he never mentions you.  Everyone he tried to speak to at the convention knew him and often had previous meetings with him; a number of delegates (liberals all, your target audience) had no idea who you were.

You weren't discriminated against, you were put where you were supposed to be. 

So cut down on the free advertising for your competitor and on the sour grapes complaints, because other than that, I really enjoyed your show today.

                              ~Dina

DNC Improves Talk Radio

Listening to talk radio on the way home, as I normally do on my commute, I noticed that both the conservatives and the liberals were energetic, energized--it was much more enjoyable than usual to listen (and I am someone who already enjoys it). 

Maybe it was because they were jazzed about being at the convention in Boston, maybe it was just the fact that they were in a different setting, but they should do this more often.

ABB=IB

In honor of the DNC in Boston, I'd like to take the opportunity to say something that has been bothering me since the primary season started.

"Anybody But Bush" is an intellectually bankrupt ideology.

Seriously.  Anybody but Bush?  Really?  Including Hitler?  No, wait, I forgot.  Many of the ABB crowd thinks that Bush is no different than Hitler (although how they can compare what is at worst a morally questionable war to deliberate mass genocide is beyond me).

Let's ignore dictators (who may or may not be hated by the ABB crowd) and throw out some other names that we know they'll hate: Dick Cheney.  Rush Limbaugh.  Sean Hannity.  Bill O'Reilly.

Remember, the other side of ABB would be NBB or "Nobody's Better than Bush", an argument that I haven't heard any conservative make in jest, much less while being serious.  The idea that one person, who got where he is through our flawed but not horrible political system, would be at either end of the good/bad continuum is laughable.

But let's give the ABB crowd the benefit of the doubt.  We can now assume that they mean "Anybody who agrees with most of my thoughts and beliefs is better than the guy who is there now because he disagrees with most of my beliefs.  Furthermore all the guys from my party and all those from parties on my end of the political spectrum are all reasonably close to my thoughts/beliefs."

But when you think about it, that's not such an impressive idea to come to.

Australia Blames Philippines, Spain for Terrorist Threats

Spain denies buckling to terrorists

Took them long enough to make the denial.  Australia may have been the first to say it, but everyone has been thinking this since the elections after the March 11 attacks.

Boston Protesters

On Friday, on my commute home, I was listening to Air America (Al Franken's all-liberal radio network); specifically, the Randi Rhodes show.  She was complaining that the people protesting the DNC's convetion in Boston this weekend got to be one block away, versus the RNC's convention in New York, where protestors will not be allowed near the convention site, but on the West Side Highway.  A legitimate complaint, I thought (though some of her suggestions of how to fix it were ridiculous).

So I was really interested to read the article entitled: Convention Protesters Upset With Site

Here's some key lines from the article:

"The maze of overhead netting, chain link fencing and razor wire...Abandoned, elevated rail lines and green girders loom over most of the official demonstration zone that slopes down to a subway station closed for the duration. To avoid hitting girders, tall protesters will have to duck at one end..."

Doesn't sound like they will have a good time either.

Reverend Billy

The Reverend Is Irreverent

His church is the Church of Stop Shopping...why would vendors, who sell things, want anything to do with him?

Editorial echos recent news about affirmative action

In a USA Today editorial, Yolanda Young says: "This new distinction [between blacks who succeed and those who do not] is not based on one's wealth, class or skin tone, but one's mentality."

This echos recent news about affirmative action included the information that in elite universities, the vast majority of black students are either biracial or children of immigrants. They are the ones who are succeeding...and you can't say that they faced less racial discrimination than their counterparts, nor can you say that they had an easier life (in fact, for children of immigrants, it is more likely that it was the opposite).

Edit: You can read about the affirmative action story here.

Bush: Incompetent Dictator

"After all, it's possible that George W. Bush is an illegitimately installed fascist monster leading America's military-industrial complex on a nuclear crusade for world domination. But what kind of dime-store dictator can't even crush dissent at his own bookstore?"

Jonathan V. Last writes an article about the misperception that Bush is a dictator by comparing the claims of dictatorship (and, while we're on the subject, they usually complain about his censorship too) by explaining what type of books are available in the National Archives.

Good article, great ending.

W1K

I love W1K. I'm entered in a text contest that starts in about 5 minutes.

Wish me luck!

Manchurian Candidate

I find the whole thing ironic...the original was about the evils of communism, the new one is about the evils of capitalism...and insinuates that our current president was placed by equally malicious means.

The Drudge Report mentions the quote:

"Freed from any obligations to fact, MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE can play far dirtier than FAHRENHEIT 911," writes [New York Times' Frank] Rich in a column set for release this Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

Not that Fahrenheit 9/11 respected any obligation to the facts.

^{Thanks to Allah for the tip.}

The DNC

Pissing off Pizza shop managers and Taxi Drivers.

Oh yeah, the Democratic Party is real concerned about the "plight of the working man".

 


Note: I am aware that the taxi drivers did came to an agreement. However, that agreement is, if I understand it correctly, $12/person with a 3 person minimum, or $36. However, here's a quote from the original article:

"If the city won't go up to at least $45 to take three passengers, we'll go on strike," said Balwinder Gill, 37, a 10-year veteran driver from Everett. "We're just not going to take it. We're going to lose money."

And here is a quote from a more recent one:

"If the meter were running, it would be a lot more," David Sandberg said after he emerged from the meeting with about 15 other drivers and convention officials. "But we would rather get the business than lose the business."

Didn't Take Long, did it?

"...others say the incident is a clear example of "frightening" corporate censorship of liberal entertainers."

When I first heard of Linda Ronstadt's comments in praise of Michael 'I don't lie I just encourage you to take away the wrong impression' Moore at the Alladin Casino, and her subsequent 'ejection' from the theater, I knew that someone would cry censorship. After all, they did when Whoopi Goldberg dismissed as spokesman for Slim-Fast.

Let me type this next part slowly:

Refusing to pay someone for their opinions is NOT THE SAME as censorship.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim to be for free speech actually have no idea what that means. Free speech is only free in the sense that the government cannot stop you from saying what you want. It is not free from the consequences of your statements.

Whoopi Goldberg was hired to speak for a company (that is the definition of being a spokesman). If, by her statements, she no longer fit the image they wanted to project, they were right to fire her. If, as did happen, consumers were unhappy with her as a representative...haven't you ever heard the expression, "The customer is always right"? Especially when it is thousands expressing their displeasure.

Linda Ronstadt was hired as an entertainer. She misjudged her audience and her ability to entertain them; she assumed not only that they would agree with her*, but also that they wanted to hear her political views and not just her music.

One more note: It was probably deliberate.

Before her concert, Ronstadt had laughingly told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that she hoped that the casino performance would be her last.

"I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back," she was quoted as telling the newspaper.

_{*I listen to Air America and this seems to be a common flaw of liberals: perhaps because they are surrounded by like-minded people, they cannot believe that anyone could disagree with them short of being stupid and/or evil.}

Reflective Glass Walls

Wild picture

Hollywood Republicans

"It makes sense that the Hollywood working class identifies with the Republican message. One screenplay sale can bump you to the highest tax bracket that year, but who knows when your next sale (if any) will be and how long you'll have to stretch that income out? Meanwhile, you've been branded as "rich," and a large chunk of your hard-earned money is for the taking, as you plan for a future career making lattes at Starbucks."

Income mobility.  The self-interested reason why people who aren't wealthy right now would support lower taxes for the upper percentiles.

(The other reason, of course, being that they think it's wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.)

Unions

I have been aware for a long time of the stranglehold that unions can have over a profession. As a theater person (actor and techie), I became aware of the specifics of the union's influence over NYC's theatre community at a young age. If you want to work on Broadway, you must pay and/or work as an apprentice-type person to join the union...and if you don't join, they completely keep you out of techie positions and severely limit the number and quality of auditions you can go on as an actor.

That makes this article Look for the Union Label all the more outrageous. Unions are forcing people to make the equivalent of campaign contributions to political candidates they don't support.

I thought unions claimed they were 'for the people'. How does stealing money from union members to use for a political cause help the little guy?

Wanting Welfare: Understandable; Wanting it for Someone Else: Selfish

The impulse to give to others is easily recognized as a 'good' one...(right now, I won't spend time arguing it for the Ayn Rand aficionados)

At the same time, it's understandable to want more than you have.  It's part of human nature and more.  Jewish tradition teaches that the 'evil inclination' is what encourages man to build a home, provide for his family, strive to be better.

Given these two thoughts, you might suppose, and many do, that welfare is a wonderful combination of these two ideas.  But it isn't.

Saying that you are in favor of welfare really means that you feel that you believe that certain people deserve charity...but you want others to pay for it.  Or worse, that you believe that you should help them, but you won't unless forced to.

The first is horrible because you expect others to pay for something that you want.  Judging who is deserving of aid and how you would help them is an extremely complex decision: we shouldn't be surprised that different people would come to different solutions.  To believe that your way is the best way and that it is deserving of the force of law to enforce it is arrogance of the highest degree.

The second is worse because it means that you are refusing to take responsibility for what you believe is right.  It means that you want to "have your cake and eat it too".  It means that you won't face the consequences of what you want.  It's selfishness, not of the kind that Objectivists (and myself) extoll, but of a horrible, small, despicable kind.

Furthermore, it separates the idea of charity from the act.  That separation encourages people to believe that they are not responsible to help fix any suffering they see; it allows them to dismiss it as SEP (someone else's problem).  They begin to believe that someone else (e.g. the government) has to take care of everything.

It makes us forget that we can and should change the world...

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
--Margaret Mead

Disabled Students Sue

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/health/index.ssf?/base/national-2/109032867392870.xml

The key sentence to note is

"students who have trouble reading can learn to practice medicine if they receive enough time and a distraction-free setting in which to complete the Medical College Admission Test [emphasis added]."

Thanks just the same, but when I'm in the hospital, I would prefer that my doctors don't have trouble reading in a distraction-filled setting. 

Who is this person?

So, who is this crazy person who expects you to read her thoughts?

Well, I am 22 years old and I just graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in Political Science.  I'm a Jewish Libertarian who lives in Westchester (the suburbs) of New York, about 45 minutes away from NYC.  I have very strong political opinions, but I'm not too sure about what I want to do with my life.  In the meantime...I guess I'll write.

What will I write about?  Things that make me angry, things that make me happy, things that make me *think*.

I called this blog "Deliberately Provocative Thoughts" because I want to talk about the kinds of things that you aren't supposed to discuss unless everyone around you agrees with your point of view.  I hope that you correct me when I'm wrong and challenge me when you can't believe what I'm saying and let me know about aspects of a situation that I don't know or have forgotten to mention.