Rational Review

“What Goldsmith and Wittes are saying is that the war on terrorism is a real war, just like World War I and World War II. Therefore, since prisoners of war in a real war can be kept incarcerated until the war is over, there’s no problem with holding terrorists until the war on terrorism is over, which isn’t likely to happen for a few decades. … Where does such a power come from? It’s certainly not included in my copy of the Constitution. I wonder what Goldsmith’s and Wittes’ position would be if the feds decided to do the same thing in the war on drugs. After all, as Mexican officials will attest, the alleged drug lords are killing many more people than the alleged terrorists. Would it be acceptable for U.S. officials to suddenly convert drug offenses to acts of war, enabling them to circumvent trials and the Bill of Rights for those crimes too?” (03/18/10)

“Unlike the nonfiction book to which it gives writing credit, Green Zone classifies itself as fiction. There is an unambiguous statement in the movie’s end credits saying that it’s completely fiction. Yet, this movie tells a fictitious story about the origins of a real war.” (03/18/10)

“It baffles me why so many people are apologetic about the U. S. having a self-interested foreign policy. When President Obama recently declared that the U. S. ‘is not a self-interested empire,’ the part about being self-interested, pace Obama, sounded just right to me. (It is the ‘empire’ portion that would be disturbing since an empire is a country that aims needlessly to lord it over other countries.) Being self-interested could mean no more than being vigilant in the defense of one’s country, making sure it is safe from invasion or attack. Who can dispute that self-defense is self-interested?” (03/18/10)

“Late last week, the Texas Board of Education, meeting in Austin, the state capitol, made some preliminary decisions about what the next generation of students will learn about subjects like history, economics, and sociology, when they take courses in those subjects in any of the Lone Star State’s public schools. The board decided, for example, to make a fairly significant change in the existing official description of what a successful Texas student should know about the influence of 17th- and 18th-century ideas after completing a required course in world history in a Texas public school.” (03/18/10)

“It’s natural to fear freedom. Tell most Americans that we’d be better off if we clear-cut the regulatory jungle and simply let the market decide what products are sold, and you’re likely to be told how dangerous the world would be. Most people think government keeps us safe. It’s why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is regarded as absolutely necessary. It protects us from snake-oil sellers. Who could argue with that?” (written 06/05; posted 03/18/10)

“When I first heard of the FairTax three or four years ago, I was excited — as excited as one can get about the subject of tax, that is. I went on line and printed out the entire bill, and, from time to time over the next couple of days, I read it. It seems I have time to do this kind of thing because I don’t go to the ballet or play golf. My first reading left me underwhelmed, but reading any kind of tax code will leave you that way. I didn’t like the fact that the FairTax was to be revenue neutral, but I realized that revenue neutrality was required for it to have any chance of passage. I’m not a strict ideologue; I’m willing to achieve goals incrementally. Incrementally is how we became a welfare state, after all. If the FairTax would simplify the tax code, I saw that as an improvement worth supporting. If I have to pay the federal government a bunch of money, I might as well do it as quickly and with as little paperwork as possible. The issue of tax reduction could come later. But, try as I might, I couldn’t make myself become a supporter of the FairTax. I don’t hate it. But neither do I support it.” (03/19/10)

“Part of the problem in writing a column such as this, where I have to write about events as they unfold and at a very rapid pace, is the danger of going too fast — of failing to follow up on stories that once seemed of such pressing interest that I devoted 2000-word columns to the subject, and often a whole series of pieces, only to leave my readers with a lot of loose ends. So let’s clean up some of those longstanding loose ends, why don’t we?” (03/19/10)

“Gore People who commit their lives to going green are just better people. They’re more moral, more honest. At least, they keep telling us that, and apparently many students believe it, say University of Toronto psychologists. They initially quizzed the students on their impressions of people who buy eco-friendly products, and for the most part, they considered such consumers to be more ‘more cooperative, altruistic and ethical’ than ordinary consumers. Then the researchers took it an extra step: They ran a test to see who would be more likely to cheat and steal: Greens? Or conventional shoppers? They divided the greens and conventional shoppers, and then gave the students a test that tempted them to steal money. The researchers found: The green consumers were more likely to cheat than the conventional purchasers, and they stole more money when asked to withdraw their winnings from envelopes on their desks.” [editor’s note: While I’d question the validity of this particular study overall, given the “entitlement mentality” of many “progressives” regarding “social justice” … the results are hardly surprising - SAT] (03/18/10)

“America sits at the same economic crossroads today that Sweden faced five years ago. Sweden’s experience in eliminating the death tax could help the United States save businesses and add jobs at a critical time. Once known as Europe’s socialist paradise, Sweden still has one of the world’s highest top income tax rates (57 percent). But like the US, it no longer has an inheritance tax, or what Americans commonly refer to as the estate or ‘death’ tax. The Swedish Parliament abolished its inheritance tax in late 2004. … The country’s entrepreneurs were moving offshore — and taking their companies with them. The death tax was only making a bad situation worse.” (03/18/10)

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her henchpersons are whipping Democrats to secure 216 votes to pass the Senate’s healthcare reform bill. The Senate then would approve a companion ‘reconciliation’ measure to deodorize some of the more pungent legislative bribes and corrupt deals that helped grease the Senate legislation’s passage last Christmas Eve. Nebraska’s so-called ‘Cornhusker Kickback,’ the ‘Louisiana Purchase’ and Florida’s ‘Gator-Aid’ are among the most sinus-piercing payoffs. Before they vote, however, wavering Democrats should wonder: ‘What if the Senate doesn’t deliver?’ … ‘House Democrats are being asked by the president to hold hands, jump off a cliff, and hope (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid catches them in the Senate after the bill is law,’ Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., told CBS’ Face the Nation last Sunday.” (03/17/10)

“In the first half of the 20th century, Cleveland was an economic powerhouse. … Today that golden age is just a memory. Cleveland’s population now is not even half of what it was at its peak. Its median household income is less than $28,000, far below the national average of $50,300. One out of every five homes in Cleveland stands vacant. ‘The economy is in trouble, the schools are in trouble, and people have been leaving the city in droves for a long, long time,’ says TV star Drew Carey, a Clevelander born and bred. Carey appears in Reason Saves Cleveland, a wonderfully incisive series of mini-documentaries produced by the Reason Foundation and airing this week at reason.tv, its video website. … The Reason Foundation’s approach is libertarian. Its video series repeatedly contrasts the sclerotic, top-down culture that so often stifles innovation in Cleveland with the decentralized, entrepreneurial approaches that would encourage it.” (03/17/10)

“When President Obama asked a group of senior executives for suggestions on streamlining government, it’s unlikely that any of them suggested layers of new bureaucracy, vague marching orders, or management by committee. Yet Sen. Dodd’s ‘compromise’ financial reform proposal does all these things. The likely result? Banks and other financial institutions will still be tightly-run, aggressive organizations that can develop and sell complicated and risky new products in a heartbeat. But the agencies tasked with their oversight will be complicated and slow, encumbered by hard-to-follow rules and divided lines of authority. … Banks shouldn’t be too big to fail, and bureaucracies shouldn’t be too big to succeed.” [editor’s note: if it is indeed a “bureaucracy” (rather than a tiny “steering group” of advisors?), it’s already by definition “too big to succeed” - SAT] (03/17/10)

“Like a specter, the unpopularity of Congress’ reform proposals haunted the ultimate goal of universal health care all winter long. This issue weighed heavily on the minds of Democratic senators as they moved toward a final pre-Christmas vote on their version of reform; it became explosive after Scott Brown’s unexpected win in the Massachusetts special election. Brown’s victory needn’t have been a devastating blow to reform — there’s always been a clear legislative path forward — but the message it sent to Congress, rightly or wrongly, was that the bad poll numbers associated with health care could have real consequences on Election Day. And that’s made a big difference ever since. But a funny, though little noticed, thing happened as the wounded cause of reform limped toward the finish line: The polling started to turn around.” (03/18/10)

“Property is that beautiful foundation from which libertarians approach conflicts. Accepting that the rights to property come through the rights of original homesteading, appropriation, and exchange eliminates the need to question motives or intentions in action. Without defined property rights, the public is left squabbling for some other rubric from which to judge action.” (03/18/10)

“A standardized national curriculum wouldn’t make California’s kids smarter or well equipped to compete in the global economy, or even better citizens. But a national, one-size-fits-all curriculum would be highly political, beset by special interest lobbying, and almost certainly diluted by teachers unions and education bureaucrats unaccountable to parents and voters.” (03/18/10)

“Many aphorisms and common expressions take on a different meaning when seen through the lens of economics. One of my favorites is: ‘If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we …’ followed by some earthly concern that needs to be addressed. What that expression seems to miss is the idea of opportunity cost: Perhaps the reason we can’t solve the particular earthy problem is precisely because we sent a man to the moon.” (03/18/10)

“On Wednesday, the Senate passed a $17.6 billion spending bill. It needs only President Obama’s signature to become law. The hope is that the new spending will create jobs. But hope is not the same as reality. Remember: anything that Washington giveth, it must first taketh away from somewhere else. This jobs bill is a zero-sum game. All those new jobs that politicians will be showing off for the cameras will have come at the expense of other jobs elsewhere. On net, they’re not creating a thing.” (03/18/10)

“Not a single person in either chamber voted no on this bill. They celebrated their bipartisanship and I heard some were even making out in the halls. But I think that was just a rumor. So what led to such a love-in? A bill for revisions to the current ethics law. When a law is more about preserving the system than anything else you will almost always find both parties in agreement. Ethics laws can pass easily when things are looking bad for government as a revered system of order because politicians understand that, above all else, they must maintain the system that provides the power.” (03/18/10)

“Boris Johnson says that he’d like to give ‘one almighty head-butt’ to Ed Balls over the Minister’s refusal to give more support to Latin classes in state schools. At its core, this spat is a case of two politicians fighting over what other people’s children should be taught, and it demonstrates the folly of having a state-designed national curriculum.” (03/18/10)

“Lawfare Project (LP) claim: ‘The abuse of the law and legal systems (is used) for strategic or military ends.’ Fact Check …. International law is clear and unequivocal. The UN Charter explains under what conditions violence and coercion by one state against another are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, and Article 51 allows the ‘right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member …. until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.’ In other words, justifiable self-defense is permitted, and Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33(1) absolutely prohibit all unilateral threats or use of force not allowed under Article 51 or authorized by the Security Council. Even then, under Fourth Geneva, civilians are ‘protected persons’ off-limits to attack. Doing it is a war crime.” (03/19/10)