Year: 2012

Occupy Wall Street; Don’t Attack Grandma: The New Class Struggle

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, Liberty , , , , , ,

Behind the verbal incoherence, behind the posturing, behind the bad children’s tantrum, behind the trash, behind the grotesque self-regard of those who would borrow $120,000 to earn a degree in “German Studies,” there may be legitimate resentment in the “Occupy” movement. It’s true that it’s difficult to get from the demonstrators an answer to a straight question that does not make you laugh or cry, or both. However, you may not have to await their answer to understand.

To the extent that you can trust television cameras at all, they seem to show largely demonstrators between their mid-twenties and their mid-thirties. That would be people born between 1975 and 1985. Those cohorts had only known ease and prosperity until 2008. They were brought up by easy-going parents who sent them, or allowed them to attend schools that nurtured self-indulgence more than intellectual curiosity. I have two children near the younger edge of these age groups. I am guilty too. When they were playing soccer, they never heard anything from coaches except “Good try.” I remember clearly one little kid ( not one of mine, God forbid!) garnering this very accolade after he had marked a goal against his own team. (Would I make this up?) These American cohorts were not in any way prepared for a world where jobs are difficult to get because companies are not hiring and where the jobs you get don’t pay well because companies don’t have to pay well since they won’t invest in you for the long-term because there is no long-term they can see. Continue reading →

Learning to Love America: In Honor of my Mother

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , , , ,

I salute you mothers everywhere. You are the most powerful creatures on Earth because you make men and men have made almost everything that God did not make himself.

My own mother lives in Heaven now. How do I know? She told me repeatedly that she had a deal with God. In return for raising five children, in part under difficult conditions, God had promised her a good seat in the great theater in the sky. God would not break a contract. I am sure of this.

I know she is watching me. She approves of most of what I do but she probably thinks I am too soft on dissenters, on those who disagree with me.

My mother has been away for several years but she is with me all the time. It’s not that I think about her that much. She is present in the way I perceive and in the way I think, in the way I approach the world. Not only do I always wear clean underwear but, when I don’t find in my drawer underwear of a color that matches the color of my shirt, I am paralyzed. Beneath and above have to match or complement each other. There are rules. They are almost as inescapable as the laws of Nature. There is a reason why we say “Mother Nature’ and not “Father Nature.”

When I meet a situation that is both unusual and alarming, I face it the way my mother would do, deliberately and coolly. It’s a completely conscious orientation. Lately, I find myself thinking my mother’s thoughts in complete sentences, even with her specific choice of words. Don’t worry, I am not talking to myself; it’s all going on inside my mind. Continue reading →

The UN, Our Beacon of Humanity

Jacques Delacroix Current Events ,

I keep wondering why any serious people right or left take seriously the United Nations General Assembly’s pretense of being a quasi-world parliament and the UN Security Council’s pretense of being a responsible world executive. Neither claim makes sense on its face.

Yesterday or today, the French centrist and generally responsible newspaper Le Figaro reported that the Syrian security forces had killed about 250 Syrians in the preceding night, almost all civilians. That’s what Le Figaro asserts. How do I judge whether it’s true or not? The Syrian Minister of Information declared that the anti-government insurgents themselves has mortared civilians in Homs to give the Assad regime a bad name! Do I need more evidence?

Human Rights Watch, which I generally trust with figures, has not had time to say anything about this number. Yet, the organization endorses the general figure of 5400 Syria dead for the year 2011 announced by the UN General Commissioner before he stopped counting. As I have said before, that figure is pretty much like 40,000 victims would be in the US.

Now, when any part of the UN insults Israel, no one is surprised because holding that country of fewer than 7 million responsible for all the ills of the Arab World has been one of the UN’s areas of consistency. That’s together with incompetent and impotent “peace keeping.” This time, the UN slapped the Arab League, no less, in the face. Normally, the UN General Assembly does anything the Arab Leagues wants, no matter how absurd, grotesque, or dishonest. Nowadays however the Arab League often finds itself on the side of common sense and of humanity. So, all bets are off. Continue reading →

An Ominous Expansion of Eminent Domain

Warren Gibson Liberty , , , , , , ,

A new assault on private property is in the works and it hasn’t gotten much attention – yet.  Needless to say, it goes by an Orwellian name, in this case the “Homeownership Protection Act.”  As summarized recently by Kathleen Pender in the San Francisco Chronicle, the scheme has been hatched by two cities in San Bernardino County and has not taken effect yet but is under serious consideration.  A new agency called a “Joint Powers Agreement” would be formed to do the dirty work.

The idea is to use the power of eminent domain to seize mortgages – not houses but mortgages owed to lenders by homeowners who have defaulted or are under water.  Using Ms. Pender’s example, suppose there is a $300,000 mortgage on a house worth $200,000.  The agency decides the mortgage balance should be $190,000 which would leave the homeowner with $10,000 in equity.  It seizes the mortgage and compensates the mortgage holder in an amount such as $170,000.  A new mortgage in the amount of $190,000 is then issued by a private firm which would reimburse the agency some lesser amount, say $180,000.  Thus the private firm pockets $10,000 up front and the agency another $10,000. One such firm, Mortgage Resolution Partners, has already been formed in San Francisco for this purpose.

There are some technical questions.  How is the house value determined?  By appraisers, presumably, but we saw in the housing bubble how useless their numbers were.  And what if the mortgage had been securitized, i.e., put into a mortgage-backed security?  The Federal Reserve holds a lot of these securities.  What if a local government entity tried to seize a mortgage that was ultimately owned by the Fed?  Wouldn’t that be fun?

Technical questions aside, the whole idea portends a massive new assault on private property by ravenous politicians and bureaucrats and their private co-conspirators.

Eminent domain has generally been understood as a way of solving holdout problems when a “public” project is proposed.  Such projects typically require acquisition of property from a number of owners and can’t be built at all unless and until all owners are willing to sell.  A single holdout can ruin the project.  Thus eminent domain has almost always been used to seize real property (land and buildings) as opposed to personal property such as mortgages.  (Private solutions to holdout problems have been proposed.)

The only ultimate limitation on the use of eminent domain is a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”  That clause is of course wide open to varying interpretations of “public use” and “just compensation.”

A landmark Supreme Court 5-4 decision in 2005 held that the City of New London could seize a modest house owned by Suzette Kelo and hand it over to a private developer.  The house and surrounding buildings were seized and destroyed but the project went bust and the land is still vacant.  This was a significant extension of the notion of “public use.”  Justice Stevens in his decision to uphold the City noted that “a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties.”

Indeed.  Can there ever be a public project that does not benefit some private party?  Any public project necessarily diverts resources to some private party such as a contractor or neighbors whose property values are enhanced.  Turning the proposition around, almost any private project throws off some public benefits.  Kelo opened the door to conspiracies of private developers and public officials to launch almost any sort of assault on anyone’s private property.

The “just compensation” clause is also gravely problematic.  Suzette Kelo loved her little pink house.  Its market value wasn’t nearly enough to compensate for the emotional loss she suffered when she was kicked out.  Values, as distinct from prices, are subjective and are revealed by voluntary transactions.

In addition to the obvious grave immorality of this latest assault on private property, consider the incentive problems that it raises.  Future savers will be reluctant to invest their savings in mortgages or financial products containing mortgages knowing they could be expropriated.  Homeowners will find loans harder to get, thanks to the “Homeowner Protection Act.”  (Echoes of Ludwig von Mises: government interventions invariably make things worse for their ostensible beneficiaries.) There will be a marginal shift away from saving toward consumption.  Economic growth will be marginally slowed, for which politicians will blame the free market and plump for yet more expansions of government power.

Should the San Bernardino project go forward, it will be very likely to end up at the Supreme Court.  The Kelo and Obamacare decisions do not bode well for the result.

Around the Web: Left and Right Edition

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some sense is finally being made on foreign policy in the Wall Street Journal (h/t Jacques)

Jury nullification in New Hampshire!?! Please buh-lieve it!

When Left links up with Right

Will Wilkinson (of the Economist) and Nick Gillespie (of Reason) take turns ganging up on a recent hit piece of libertarianism in the New York Times. Libertarianism, if you will remember, is the best of both the Left and the Right (with none of the nastiness).

And on Leftist-but-realist (a rarity I assure you!) Stephen Walt’s blog over at Foreign Policy, a Cato Institute foreign policy wonk gets his due.

Capitalism and Gay Identity: God’s Two Greatest Enemies

Brandon Christensen Culture, History , , , , , , , , , ,

I recently read an article in this anthology on the emergence of gay identity in the United States and its connection to capitalism. I was particularly delighted to read it after the author, John D’Emilio, admits the following in the abstract:

Using Marxist analyses of capitalism, I argue that two aspects of capitalism – wage labor and commodity production – created the social conditions that made possible the emergence of a distinctive gay and lesbian identity.

Before I continue I should mention that the article was published in 1983 – a whole six years before the fall of the Berlin Wall – so my initial stance going in to the reading was one of condescension. In my head I was thinking:

Oh really? A Marxist analysis of gay identity and how it relates to capitalism? I can’t WAIT to see what interesting charges will follow. Private prisons for homosexuals? Exploited homosexual labor for meager wages? I am soooo glad that my critical thinking skills are respected by the academic community.

Alas, the article in question is very, very good (but for all the wrong reasons, of course!).

The article is good for three important reasons.

1) it explicitly shows how capitalism, or more precisely the market, has indeed provided more freedom for homosexuals.

2) it inadvertently shows how the state has been used by factions to impose their will upon other factions in society.

3) it illustrates just how utterly childish Leftism in general and 1980’s American Marxism in particular really is.

D’Emilio, an academic historian (lest you question his very good credentials), begins by explaining how the gay and lesbian identity as it is understood today began to emerge in the 1960’s. The key aspect here is that a number of myths about homosexuality were created and adopted by the gay movement in response to state-sponsored oppression. It would be pertinent to keep these myths in mind when we think about other movements that have worked to eliminate oppressive laws (which are always and everywhere created and enforced by our enemy: the state) since the 1960’s. D’Emilio writes:

[…] we constructed a myth of silence, invisibility, and isolation as the essential characteristics of gay life in the past as well as the present. Moreover, because we faced so many oppressive laws, pubic policies, and cultural beliefs, we projected this image into an image of an abysmal past

[…] There is another historical myth that enjoys nearly universal acceptance in the gay movement, the myth of the ‘eternal homosexual.’ The argument runs something like this: Gay men and lesbians always were and always will be. We are everywhere; not just now, but throughout history, in all societies and in all periods. This myth served as a political function in the first years of gay liberation.

It is important to note here that myths among minority groups are often created by the intellectual class to help give such groups a base with which to launch their “resistance” campaigns from. While liberal democracies are much better for minority groups than are other types of governments, there is still oppression to be found. Again, this oppression is always and everywhere created and enforced by the state at the behest of factions. The marketplace, which is made up of billions of individuals pursuing their own self-interests, has no place for systematic rules of oppressing potential customers and business partners. This is not to say that some business interests don’t try to eliminate competition through laws based on irrational, xenophobic or racist views, but only that if the market is allowed sufficient room to operate freely then individual freedom and prosperity will ensue.

When D’Emilio writes about the myth of the eternal homosexual, he is not denying that homosexuality has been absent from human societies since time immemorial. What he stating here is that homosexuality as American society now understands it is a new phenomenon. Got that? So, 200 years ago homosexual acts weren’t considered homosexual. They were something else entirely and dependent upon the cultural interpretations for homosexual acts of a given society. This is what scholars mean when they refer to “identity.”* D’Emilio continues to elaborate his point:

Here I wish to challenge this myth. I want to argue that gay men and lesbians have not always existed. Instead, they are a product of history, and have come into existence in a specific historical era [stay with me here, outdated Marxist frameworks can often be useful – bc]. Their emergence is associated with the relations of capitalism; it has been the historical development of capitalism – more specifically its free-labor system – that has allowed large numbers of men and women in the late twentieth century to call themselves gay, to see themselves as part of a community of similar men and women, and to organize politically on the basis of that identity.

D’Emilio is admitting here, in an anthology published by the Monthly Review, that capitalism has created the space necessary for homosexuals to live their lives as freely and as independently as possible, something that has never been accomplished before**. What’s more, D’Emilio is correct and for all the right reasons. More flexibility and mobility among individuals is one of the hallmarks of capitalism, as is the emergence of more choices for just about anything. Without capitalism, the gay and lesbian movement would have never existed. There would always be people living in the closet, to be sure, but it was the institutions aimed at creating freedom of association and choice – the hallmarks of the market-based economy, or capitalism – that was developed by American society that has led to emergence of a vibrant, proud, and now-successful gay and lesbian movement.

Although the gay and lesbian movement began to flourish in the 1970’s as a result of liberalized markets and the re-emergence of globalization (which creates even more choices and more prosperity for those who participate), D’Emilio notes that in the 1950’s and 60’s “oppression by the state intensified, becoming more systematic and inclusive.” Again, D’Emilio is correct. The state has always been a useful tool by which one faction aims to oppress another faction. Conservatives have always loathed homosexuality (the closet conservatives most of all!), and their attempts to equate homosexuality with communism in the 1950’s and 1960’s falls neatly in line with their demagogic attacks on homosexuality over the course of the American republic’s history.

So how is it that capitalism, which has led to the flourishing of gay identity in the West, can be condemned by Marxists of the 1980’s (and probably today as well) for the very same oppression that it has undone if the state has been the ultimate oppressor of this flourishing?

Here is where we can find the childishness of the Left.

D’Emilio answers the first half of my question:

The answers, I think, can be found in the contradictory relationship of capitalism to the family. On the one hand […] capitalism has gradually undermined the material basis of the nuclear family by taking away the economic functions that cemented the ties between family members. As more adults have been drawn into the free-labor system, and as capital has expanded its sphere until it produces as commodities most goods and services we need for our survival, the forces that propelled men and women into families and kept them there have weakened. On the other hand, the ideology of capitalist society has enshrined the family as a source of love, affection, and emotional security, the place where our need for stable, intimate human relationships is satisfied.

This elevation of the nuclear family to preeminence in the sphere of personal life is not accidental. Every society needs structures for reproduction and childrearing, but the possibilities are not limited to the nuclear family. Yet the privatized family fits in well with capitalist relations of production […] Ideologically, capitalism drives people into heterosexual families […] Materially, capitalism weakens the bonds that once kept families together so that their members experience a growing instability in the place they have come to expect happiness and security. Thus, while capitalism has knocked the material foundation away from family life, lesbians, gay men, and heterosexual feminists have become scapegoats for the social instability of the system.

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! How can I be reading this? How does something that has been so brilliant up to this point become so childish and immature? Why am I going to school again? To learn critical thinking skills? Let me get this straight:

1) instead of acknowledging the ability of capitalism to provide more choices and better lives for individuals in society, or

2) acknowledging that the state is the actual oppressor of liberty, the author decides to

3) blame homosexual oppression on the “contradictory relationship of capitalism to the family” due to ideology?

Can it get any more childish and immature than this? The author is basically stating the following: Capitalism helped alter family life in a fundamental way in the 19th and 20th centuries, so families adapted themselves accordingly.

I think the inability of the author to give credit where credit is due (because of ideological reasons, ironically enough) does enough to discredit the “Marxist analyses” we are dissecting, but there is one piece that I would like to hone in on, if only to more fully discredit the dying, reactionary school of thought known as Marxism:

“Ideologically, capitalism drives people into heterosexual families”

First of all, I didn’t realize that capitalism had an ideology. I am fairly certain that the Marxists of the 1980’s did (do?) not know what capitalism’s ideology was either. Reality tells a different story than the one depicted in the two paragraphs above. What capitalism has done, and continues to do, is provide more choices to individuals (including homosexuals). Just as the family continued to adapt to changes in the past, so too will they continue to adapt in the present and the future. Gay marriage is a big topic these days, and – guess what? – it the state that is to blame for the oppression of individual choice, not capitalism.

I and others here at Notes On Liberty are well-aware that conservatives are behind the efforts to hamper choice in the market for marriages. Warren Gibson, Jacques Delacroix, and Fred Foldvary have all blogged about this before. If Leftists are truly interested in equality they would do well to heed the facts concerning gay life in the West: Capitalism has brought about the movement’s flourishing, and the government is holding it back. This fact is true not just in the realm of gay identity, but in the realm of all other social, political, and economic aspects of as well. Leftists would also do well to remember that their movement, as it stands now, as it stood three decades ago, is, for all intents and purposes, one of conservatism, obstinate ignorance, and embarrassing causality.

*Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the horrors of the centrally-planned economy became exposed to all, the Left has been trying its hardest to avoid using the term “individualism” in its theoretical frameworks. Thus it has concocted a bunch of somewhat-useful terms like “identity” to explain what libertarians have been trying to get across to everybody for centuries: that individuals are best-able to choose for themselves, and therefore it would be best to go about molding social institutions like laws and political structures to play an accommodating role in individual choices by reducing (or outright eliminating) the size and scope of the state.

**In Native American societies, homosexuals had a large amount of personal freedom and were often revered for their shamanistic qualities, but such a social status worked both ways: if there was a problem of some kind that was viewed as supernatural then guess which shaman’s feet the blame often fell to? Shamans were often murdered quickly rather than put on trial due to the fears of witchcraft that Native American tribes harbored.

PS I don’t think I’ve ever used the term “homosexual” in a conversation before. If anybody out there has a term that gay people like to refer to themselves as I would be grateful for the heads up. Otherwise I will just continue to call everybody “dude.”

PPS Inevitable disclaimer: no I am not a homosexual. I like boobs and big juicy female butts. I like ’em a lot! Ladies: send me dirty messages to my Twitter account!

PPPS I have a lot of respect for Karl Marx. Go here for details.

Francophonie: encore de la connerie. (Version revue et corrigée)

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , ,

Une version precedente comportait quelques erreurs et des lacunes dont je m’excuse.

Je regarde un documentaire français sur TV 5, la chaine francophone internationale, “Gharjuwa, épouse de la vallée.”  C’est sur une ethnie népalaise qui pratique la polyandrie: une femme, plusieurs maris. Le sujet est intrinsèquementintéressant, Et puis, le fait que la femme polygame ait le gros sourire aux lèvrestout le long de l’interview confirme pas mal de mes à-priori sur ce qui rend les femmes heureuses, en fin de compte! (Ce n’est pas sorcier.) Et puis, le tout se passe dans un environnement montagneux magnifique. Comme c’est le cas pour la plupart des documentaires français que je connais, la photo est excellente.

L’une des tâches de la femme polygame est de preparer la bière. Une voix masculine dit le commentaire en Français. Soyons francs: je ne sais pas si c’est le commentateur qui a rédigé les texte. En tous cas, il nous avise de ce qu’ au Népal, la bière ménagère se prépare en faisant “cuire ensemble” une céréale (ou plusieurs;maïs ou blé noir, ou les deux, je ne suis pas sûr) et de la levure. Je fais un retour en arrière mental. C’est bien ce qu’il a dit. La levure, c’est ce qui transforme les sucres des céréales en alcool et en CO2. Mais la levure se compose d’organisme vivants qui meurent vite à la chaleur. Pas question de la faire cuire avant qu’elle ait fait son travail. La description qu’on nous donne  est soit absurde soit fausse

A priori, selon son accent et sa diction, le commentateur est français ou belge. Il vient donc d’un pays célébré dans le monde entier pour ses vins et aussi pour sesbières, ou alors, massivement, seulement pour ses bières. Des pays aussi respectéspour leur pain et pour leurs pâtisseries levées. Vins, bières, pains, pâtisserie levéeesexigent la maîtrise de l’emploi des levures. Comment peut-on être aussi ignorant d’une partie aussi importante de sa culture séculaire? Et puis, je sais bien qu’en principe, l’ignorance et la connerie sont des choses différentes. Pourtant, il y a des cas ou il est difficile de distinguer l’une de l’autre. Comment peut-on avoir étéélevé dans la culture française ou belge et être aussi profondément mal informé, àmoins d’être également bête? Continue reading →

The French Presidentials and Cinco de Mayo

Jacques Delacroix Current Events, Politics , , , , , ,

I have been busy producing a legible and clean copy of my memoirs: “I Used to Be French….” It’s an endless process. By the way, if you are an agent, don’t be shy about asking to read this remarkable and witty document.

While my back was turned, the world continued to turn. The French lost the battle of Puebla and they lost an election, all in the same day.

People in California celebrate Cinco de Mayo with beer and more expensive stuff. Few know what they are celebrating, Anglos, never, children of Mexicans, seldom, Mexican immigrants, often but not always. Myself, I celebrate too because I like beer, Mexicans and Mexican beer. I celebrate discretely though.

In the battle of Puebla, in 1862, under the presidency of Benito Juarez, a Mexican army achieved victory over a French expeditionary forces against all expectations. What happened is that the French thought they were on their way to Prussia to beat on that emerging power before it was too late. They turned right instead of left outside Paris by mistake. Somehow, they ended up in Mexico and the rest is history, mostly forgotten history. They left behind in Mexico, probably pan dulces, and less probably, the name for roving musicians in charro costumes, mariachis (“marriage”). Continue reading →

The American Parade

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , , , ,

In the United States, a strong indigenous form of theater has not developed (middle-brow and high-brow forms were both imported from Europe when already mature). Had a specifically American variety of theater arisen, it would probably not have become tied to locality because of the high geographic mobility of the population. So, instead of theater, Americans have invented their own, strikingly direct kind of identity-enhancing performance: the parade.

In lesser American towns, parades are often a disorderly or downright messy mixture of military spit-and-polish, of crass commercial advertising, of ideological propaganda, of politicking, and of public declarations of self-satisfaction with one’s hobbies. In one very small, prosperous town on the West Coast, the last 4th of July parade included, among other attractions, the Kazoo Club, the Folding Lawn Chairs Marching and Drill Team, Zero Population Growth, the local Democratic Club, a grassroots group intent on gaining school district autonomy, and two old car buff clubs. These were followed by a lone couple (a pair) of tap dancers. There was also a moms’ club, whose sole purpose appeared to be Momaffirmation. (They did not seem to be bragging either about themselves or about their kids, who incidentally, were not even dressed up for the occasion.) Of course, there were several musical marching bands – at various levels of proficiency, from the superb to the pathetic – all much and equitably applauded. Continue reading →

Somaliland in the News

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Law , , , , , , , ,

Reports the BBC:

Leaders from Somalia and Somaliland have held their first formal discussions on the future of the self-proclaimed Somaliland republic.

It broke away in 1991 and wants to be a separate country – but it has not been internationally recognised.

Mogadishu wants the northern territory to be part of a single Somali state.

Since declaring independence, Somaliland has enjoyed relative peace in contrast to the rest of Somalia, which has been plagued by conflict […]

It was the first time in 21 years that there had been formal, direct contact between the authorities in Mogadishu, and the Somaliland administration, which used to be a British colony, whereas southern Somalia was governed by Italy.

The two sides agreed the talks should continue and, in a declaration, they called on their respective presidents to meet as soon as possible – this could be as early as next week in Dubai.

They also called on the international community to help provide experts on legal, economic and security matters, which our correspondent says are all issues that will need to be addressed in clarifying the future relationship between Somalia and Somaliland.

This is great news! Continue reading →

Things You Need to Know About Germany, About French Culture

Jacques Delacroix Liberty , , ,

If you know this blog at all, you will not be surprised to learn that I am an expert in French culture, a merciless one. As luck would have it, I am also an expert in Europe in general and in Germany in particular. That’s because the media one uses to follow French affairs unfailingly tell you about European affairs.

Here is an example of my pan-European expertise: Do you know what German Chancellor Angela Merkel does with her old pant-suits?

She wears them!

The problem with stereotypes is not that they always carry falsehoods but that some are true but it’s hard to distinguish the correct ones from the urban legends and historical fables.

Here is a tenacious historical fable held even by lawyers: Under French law, the accused has to prove that he is not guilty.

It’s just not true, not even a little.

I read the French daily Le Figaro on-line almost daily. I see it as centrist as you can get. It’s well written (not a given with contemporary French press and the silly desire to appear with it*). It ranges far and wide.

There is a piece in it today that shows once more that the French are serious about their vacations. The title asks: “Can one copulate in the ocean?” It’ s clear  right after the third paragraph the question does not refer to fish or whales which do it all the time in the ocean, as most of us realize. The author implies the question for humans. Nevertheless, there is an allusion to dolphins who purportedly do it often and really, really enjoy it. (Damn, damn! Not only are they smarter than I am, they have a better sex life.)

Anyway, after supposedly consulting “sexologists,” author supplies a liberating positive answer to the question. Yes, she says, you can do it; it’s fun but if you do it where the water is over your head, make sure you don’t drown.

On the one hand, I exclaim: “N.S.!” On the other hand, I think: “What a way to go!”

French culture is interesting but not for the reasons you probably think. It’s a good counterpoint the better to understand American culture. Some wise man (or maybe a “wise old Latina” as a current Supreme Court Justice once said)  declared: “One who knows only one country knows no country.” You got to compare to understand.

French culture, like other contemporary European cultures, is strangely deficient in some area, in many areas, actually. Here is a link to an introduction to the topic, right on this blog:

French Movies, Sex, and the Welfare State

I don’t imply that you shouldn’t go to Europe this summer. It’s a quality museum. The food is quite good in some countries, in France, of course, and in Italy but also often, in Spain.

Of course, if you are under thirty and have no children and you vacation in Europe you are probably a wimp. When are you going to go to Burma, to Paraguay? When you are sixty-five?

* For the record: “au courant” does not mean “with it” or “edgy” as semi-lingual journalists seem to think. Those two words just mean “well informed,” and “up to date.” I don’t want to catch any of you making this mistake again.

Lost in the Hulaballoo

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, Links, Politics , , , , ,

…was Ron Paul’s hearing on fractional reserve banking. Between the health insurance ruling and AG Holder’s scandal this excellent use of congressional air time has gone largely unnoticed. Congressman Paul brought three well-known economists to testify and I have linked to all three of their testimonies below (I haven’t read all of them yet).

If you manage to finish them soon, feel free to post what you got from them in the comments section.

Around the Web: ObamaCare Edition (Part 2)

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Law, Links , , , , , , , , , , ,

There is a lot of great stuff out there on the recent ruling. Here are a few I found interesting:

I think I’m done blogging about this whole mess…phlegh!

Around the Web: ObamaCare Edition

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Politics , , , , , , ,

Over at the Independent Institute’s blog, the Beacon, Melancton Smith worries about SCOTUS’s ruling and how it will be viewed by tax-hungry politicians:

Roberts is correct that Congress often uses the taxing power to influence conduct, but all the examples that he gives (taxes on imported goods, cigarette taxes, etc.), focus on discouraging conduct not compelling conduct. He cites no example of where Congress taxes someone for not doing something. I realize that this is a fine distinction I am making, but in my view Congress does more violence to the dignity of the individual by taxing him for not buying insurance than taxing him for buying a pack of smokes.

Yes, the taxing power is not equal to the full regulatory power of the government brought on by use of the Commerce Clause, but I fear that the Court has given power hungry legislators a road map of how to augment federal power using the tax power.

Yes, it’s true that the ruling on ObamaCare has given legislators a clear path to using the tax power, but this is precisely why the ruling is going to be good for federalism in the long run. Americans are notoriously stubborn when it comes to taxes (and I wouldn’t have it any other way baby!) and this new ruling is essentially forcing legislators to tax people directly rather than in the roundabout way (through the Commerce Clause) that has been done since the fascistic New Deal-era. Continue reading →

ObamaCare and the Long Game

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Politics , , , ,

The Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday has garnered a number of ideas for me. I’ll admit that I was a little bit shocked when I heard that ObamaCare had been upheld. The lawyers who argued against ObamaCare were very, very good ones, and the pummeling that they administered to the Obama administration’s lawyers was so thorough, I thought, that I wasn’t even sure that the court would split along the traditional 5-4 line.

Alas. You can read the whole thing here (and I encourage you to do so).

I wonder about Roberts’s political calculations here. What I think happened is that Roberts took a two-pronged approach to the issue. Instead of calling it a mandate, the court ruled that ObamaCare is tax. This is not going to bode well for the Obama administration’s upcoming campaign once the dust settles. The second line of attack is actually a defensive one: the SCOTUS already issued Citizens United in 2010 and if the SCOTUS had struck down ObamaCare a mere two years later the Left would have been electrified. Roberts is playing the long game.

ObamaCare is now actually seen for the huge tax increase that it is. If Republicans are smart (and they are, despite the Left’s attempts to portray them as otherwise), they’ll go after Obama on this, and they’ll go hard. ObamaCare is by no means permanent, either. The Congress could very well dismantle it before it takes effect in 2014.  Continue reading →