MayerBlog: The Web Log of
|
|
|
Thoughts for Summer 2007
MayerBlog will be on another summer hiatus, for the next three months or so, while I continue writing the manuscript of my book on the U.S. Constitution and other summer writing projects. Before going on hiatus, however, I could not resist the temptation to comment on a number of important issues in public policy and popular culture – issues that are in the news today and are likely to remain in the news throughout the summer.
n Gas-Price Hysteria, Again As summer begins, it’s time again for what, unfortunately, has become an annual summer tradition – the hysteria over high gasoline prices. As I wrote in last year’s “Thoughts for the 2006 Summer Hiatus” (May 30, 2006), Two things are sure to happen this summer: first, gasoline prices will increase (that’s the natural consequence of the economic law of supply and demand); and second, demagogues (both politicians and political commentators) will blame the high prices, erroneously, on “oil company profits” and on so-called “price gouging” (that’s the natural consequence of the laws of human nature, on the dark side). Politicians, by demonizing “Big Oil,” are attempting to create a scapegoat for their own bad policies; in reality, it’s “Big Government,” not “big oil,” that’s responsible for high gas prices.
Those basic facts are still true this summer, with the hysteria reaching new highs (or lows) as experts predict gasoline prices ranging between $3 and $4 per gallon throughout the season. I cannot emphasis enough how despicable it is for politicians to demagogue on this issue, threatening to pass new laws criminalizing so-called “price gouging” (as the bill that recently passed the U.S. House would do) – which even the left-liberal editors at USA Today acknowledged would, in effect, “criminalize free enterprise.” (As I also wrote last year, “price-gouging” is, in fact, a myth, based on ignorance of basic economic (and moral) principles. In a marketplace with prices set free of government intervention, the sales price is established through transactions by willing buyers and willing sellers; and when, due to either natural disasters or other emergency situations, supply drastically drops, it’s right and proper that sellers adjust their prices upward accordingly. In a competitive environment, service stations that raise their prices when supplies fall or their costs rise are in no way “extorting” or “swindling” motorists at the pump: consumers who think the cost of gas at a given station is too high can either buy gas elsewhere, from competing stations that are selling it less, or do without, if they’re unable or unwilling to shop around.
All that the anti-“price-gouging” legislation would do is to result in long lines and shortages at gas stations – the inevitable result of government attempts to control prices – reminiscent of the late 1970s, the last time the U.S. government followed this stupid policy. And as the Wall Street Journal noted last year, in an editorial I quoted in last summer’s blog essay, “If Congress thinks that voters are in a foul mood now, wait until their price-control scheme offers them no gas at `non-gouging’ prices.’” Not only is this legislation bad public policy, but it’s also yet another example of the rank hypocrisy of members of Congress, for misguided U.S. government policies themselves are responsible for high gasoline prices. There’s no shortage of oil on world markets (although the price of oil worldwide has risen, to meet increased demand, particularly from Red China and other developing countries); but there’s definitely a shortage of U.S. refining capacity. Bad laws – environmental regulations and other energy regulations – have created disincentives for oil producers to build new refineries or to expand (or modernize) existing refining facilities to meet consumer demands. The real reason for rising U.S. gasoline prices derives from this one basic fact: No new oil refineries have been built in the United States in the past 30 years. Thomas Jefferson, while traveling through Europe as U.S. ambassador in the late 1780s, smuggled long-grain rice out of Italy so it could be imported into the United States. Proud of this achievement, years later he wrote: “The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture.” Today, perhaps the greatest service one could do for the country would be to build a new oil refinery, notwithstanding all the government policies that discourage it.
n Demopublican/Replicrat Mediocrity National partisan politics during the summer of 2007, as during the rest of the year, will continue to obsess over the upcoming 2008 presidential election. It’s not encouraging – in fact, it’s downright depressing – to see a field of candidates who are virtually all mediocrities. Out of twenty or so candidates from both major parties, only one – libertarian Republican Ron Paul (Congressman from Texas) – is qualified in terms of the one essential prerequisite for the office of president: an understanding of, and respect for, the Constitution of the United States (which it is the duty of the president to preserve and protect), including the limits it imposes on the power of the president and the powers of the federal government generally. (Unfortunately, Congressman Paul fails to understand fully the real threat that militant Islam poses to U.S. national security. Thus, although qualified to be president in terms of his proper understanding of constitutional limits, he’s lacking in leadership abilities with regard to perhaps the greatest challenge facing the next president of the United States.) All the other Demopublican/Replicrat candidates, one way or another (and albeit to varying degrees) accept the premises of the 20th-century regulatory/welfare state and the so-called “New Deal revolution” in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, giving the federal government and the presidency a vast array of powers beyond those enumerated in the text of the Constitution. Exactly how far each candidate would go, if he/she is chosen president by the Electoral College, in expanding those unconstitutional powers of government, is nothing more than just extraneous detail to this essential fact about the 2008 presidential race.
n Between Iraq and Harder Places The U.S. military occupation of Iraq continues, with no end in sight. Democrats, despite all their rhetoric about ending “the war,” really are secretly pleased, for it gives them the one issue on which they can rely for popular support, looking ahead to the 2008 elections. And Republicans, like lemmings jumping off the cliff, continue to doggedly support the Bush administration’s commitment to a continuation of the military occupation, which is really weakening us by squandering our military resources in Iraq when they might be needed, in the not-too-distant future, against America’s (and Western world’s) most formidable enemy in the militant Islam world, Iran. When it comes to defending the United States against the very real threat of militant Islamic terrorism, virtually all political groups have it wrong: left-liberals and many libertarians are naïve in their failure to understanding this threat and the danger it poses to U.S. national security, while conservatives are misguided in their approach to the inaptly-named “war on terrorism.” The Bush administration and Demopublicans/Replicrats in Congress since 9/11/2001 have generally pushed policies that have expanded governmental power and curtailed civil liberties, making the American people even more dependent on government for their security, rather than doing the most effective thing any free society could do to meet such a threat: empowering its citizens to more effectively protect themselves from terrorist acts. It’s akin to the misguided government policies in reaction to school shootings – more government “gun control” laws – rather than allowing people to more effectively defend themselves against criminals. (See my previous essay, “The Folly of Gun-Free Zones,” April 30.) The American people cannot be made more secure by making them more dependent on government.
n Attack of the Little Green Men For decades, sci-fi writers have written alarmingly about “little green men” from Mars or other planets invading earth. But now the attack of the “green” men is very real, and the attack is coming from some of our fellow earthlings: radical environmentalists who are pushing “the Great Global Warming Swindle,” as the myth of climate-change apocalypticism has been aptly called by a superb BBC documentary film that exposes the myth. Despite all the rhetoric from Al Gore and his fans – those “fear merchants” whom I discussed in a previous essay (“Merchants of Fear,” May 17, 2006) – there is no real scientific “consensus” that human activities (namely, carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels) creates global warming (and indeed, all the scientific evidence just as strongly suggests causation the other way around – that it’s the warming of the earth, from solar flares and other natural actions, that causes increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere). As Holman Jenkins noted in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed (“Climate of Opinion,” April 4), “The consensus that human activities are causing global warming is purely a social invention – there’s no way of showing it to be so, and no self-evident reason for preferring to believe it’s so. The `consensus’ is, in truth, a product of itself.” By propagating the myth, radical environmentalists are pushing their real agenda, which is to expand governmental controls over all aspects of our lives and thus, in effect, destroy free-market capitalism. This political agenda is what’s behind the junk-science rhetoric of the Al Gores of the world. And, increasingly, people who dissent from the global-warming hypothesis – including many excellent real scientists who just don’t buy the theory – are being subjected to vicious ad hominem attacks (being called “flat-earthers,” for example), as part of the radical environmentalists’ propaganda campaign, to silence opposition. It’s part of the new McCarthyism, which like other elements of the campaign in recent years to curb free speech (so-called “speech codes” on college campuses, “hate-speech” legislation, “campaign finance reform,” and other bad ideas, discussed below), comes from the political left.
n Not a Bright Idea One example of how irrational belief in the global-warming myth can lead to bad public policy – and real deprivation of people’s freedom – is the campaign now being pushed by “green” activists to ban incandescent light bulbs. The government of Australia already has passed legislation doing so, and a new energy bill being pushed by Democrats in Congress includes a provision that, if enacted, would phase out the common household light bulb in about ten years. Anti-incandescent-bulb activists argue that the standard light bulb consumes too much electricity and hence, because most electricity in the United States is generated by the burning of fossil fuels (typically, coal), it also contributes to global warming – that is, if one believes the myth being propagated by the little green men. Even if the theory were true, however, it’s certainly far from clear whether the energy savings would be worth the cost of changing to the alternative being touted by environmentalists, the “compact fluorescent” (CF) bulbs, those peculiar spiral-shaped light bulbs that supposedly consume 75 percent less electricity and last ten times longer than conventional incandescent bulbs. What’s often overlooked, however, are the costs of CF bulbs: not only are they more expensive to produce, but they also contain mercury, and thus could contribute to mercury-poisoning (a real environmental threat), if not disposed of properly. And what’s really being overlooked by the public-policy wonks who are debating the idea is how a ban on incandescent light bulbs would limit everyone’s freedom, depriving people who choose to use incandescent bulbs for lighting – for no other reason than it’s aesthetically pleasing to do so (the warm light of incandescent bulbs being much preferred by many of us to the harsh white light of fluorescents), which is ample enough reason for people to be free to do so. Let’s not give the government even more power over our everyday lives – the power to dictate what kinds of lights we may use in our own homes. It’s bad enough that Congress has dictated an end to door knobs (because of new building codes mandating access for disabled people) as well as toilets that don’t flush properly (because of another misguided policy that supposedly saves water). Uncle Sam, get your fucking hands off my light bulbs!
n Al Gore, Fear-mongering Concertmaster Fear-mongering Al Gore, who thanks to his inaptly-named propaganda film and book, An Inconvenient Truth, is one of the chief proponents of the global-warming swindle, now is trying his hand at being a concertmaster, sponsoring the July 7 “Live Earth” event, a worldwide concert to combat global warming – and, of course, to benefit Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. A long list of celebrity performers have pledged to appear at the U.S. venues of the concert; it includes AFI, Akon, Bon Jovi, Kelly Clarkson, Dave Matthews Band, Melissa Etheridge, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, Fall Out Boy, Alicia Keys, Ludacris, John Mayer, The Police, Rihanna, Smashing Pumpkins, KT Tunstall, Roger Waters, and Kanye West. It looks like a good list of performers that those of us who value truth and rationality ought to boycott.
n The Unconstitutional Census One of a myriad of examples of how modern U.S. government has departed from the Constitution is the Census. Although the 2010 Census is three years away, special-interest groups are already jockeying to have issues they care about included in the questionnaire that will be sent to every American household, according to a recent news item in USA Today (“Some displeased by fewer questions on 2010 Census form,” April 30). For example, child-welfare groups are fighting the government’s decision to drop foster care from the choices listed to describe the relationships of people living under one roof. And ethic advocacy groups, led by the Arab-American Institute, are lobbying to add a question about ancestry. The story highlights an unpleasant fact about the U.S. Census: it has become a vital tool for the expansion of the welfare state. And in so doing, it has gone far beyond the legitimate power conferred on the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, which in Article I, Section 2, authorizes Congress by law to direct an “actual Enumeration” of the number of persons inhabiting each state, in order to determine how many representatives it should have in the U.S. House. Anything other than an “actual Enumeration” – in short, a simple head count – is, arguably, beyond Congress’s power, as conferred under the Constitution. Thus, it’s unconstitutional for the Census Bureau to use statistical extrapolation, as it has, in recent years. And it’s equally unconstitutional for the Census Bureau to ask even those questions planned for the 2010 Census “short form,” which asks every household to identify all members by their gender, age, race, ethnicity, relationship to head of household, and whether the home is owned or rented. The Bureau says it wants to keep the short form as short as possible – hence, it dropped the foster care category in favor of asking whether anyone in the household sometimes lives elsewhere, such as children away at college. But if it really were serious about that, it would limit the form to the one legitimate question the Census may ask: how many people live in this house? Asking for any other information beyond that “actual Enumeration” isn’t constitutionally permitted.
n Tyranny of the Race Hustlers In the aftermath of the firing of radio host Don Imus by both MSNBC-TV and CBS Radio because of Imus’s controversial comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team (whom he called a bunch of “nappy-headed hos”), there’s only a couple clear winners: sadly, they’re Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the two race hustlers who led the campaign to oust Imus. And they did so quite hypocritically, as I noted in my Spring Briefs entry (April 10), where I briefly discussed the racism of both men and their shameful careers of exploiting race issues in order to aggrandize their own power and influence. One of the unfortunate consequences of the whole episode is that two villains like Jackson and Sharpton have become, to many people in the news media, the arbiters of politically-correct taste in America today. What a sad commentary on our culture (or lack thereof)! Don Imus, meanwhile, has brought a lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract. Imus ought to prevail in the suit: CBS had no justifiable grounds for firing him. Indeed, his contract called for him to make “controversial” and “irreverent” comments, and that’s exactly what he did. CBS is in no position to complain that they got what they contracted with Imus for. By firing him because he fulfilled the terms of his contract too well, CBS executives breached the contract – and they owe him millions of dollars in damages. Or so a court should hold.
n More Threats to Freedom of Speech In a previous entry, “Abolish the F*CCing FCC” (February 8, 2006), I argued that the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) ought to be abolished: not only is it obsolete (modern communications technology has completely undermined the original rationale for the Commission’s existence), but it’s also unconstitutional, as a direct abridgement of the free-speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Amendment provides, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” and it means exactly what it says: NO LAW! Therefore, it’s clear that the Act of Congress creating the FCC is unconstitutional. The unconstitutionality of government regulation of speech is further underscored by the ways that interest groups, from both the left and right sides of traditional political spectrum, seek to use the FCC and its regulatory powers to stifle speech they dislike. That’s been a disturbing trend that has become exacerbated in recent years, since Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl, which inaugurated a modern campaign to expand the Commission’s power to prohibit so-called “indecent” speech. That campaign, being pushed by social conservatives, includes continuing efforts to expand FCC powers beyond their traditional jurisdiction over broadcast radio and TV to include new media, such as satellite radio, cable television, and even the Internet, as well as additional powers over the Commission’s regulatory authority over cable TV providers (such as the so-called “a la carte” pricing mandate being pushed by current FCC chairman Kevin Martin). Now, left-liberals are joining with conservatives in calling for the FCC’s war on “indecent” speech to expand to include censorship of violence. (An FCC report released in late April recommended that Congress restrict violent programs on broadcast TV, under the spurious theory that TV bloodshed spurs more aggressive behavior by children.) Anti-smoking activists are pushing for automatic “R” ratings of any movies whose characters are shown smoking cigarettes. And, of course, just as ardently as conservatives want to censor “indecent” speech (which, to them, usually means anything that deals with sexuality in a frank or positive way), many left-liberals want to censor so-called “hate speech” (which usually means anything that doesn’t fit the politically-correct orthodoxy on matters of race, sex, or sexual orientation) – the way many of them have being trying to do with speech codes on college campuses. And many leftists are now pushing to expand FCC regulation over radio by resurrecting the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which is anything but fair – in fact, is an attempt by government to dictate the content of broadcasts – in an obvious attempt to silence conservative talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. All this shows that, contrary to what many of my libertarian friends assert, the very real threat to freedom of speech in America today is just as likely to come from left-liberals as from conservatives. So-called “civil rights activists,” like the members of the ACLU, ought to stop demonizing the “Religious Right” and acknowledge that the Left (both the religious left and the secular left) poses just as great, if not more, danger to First Amendment rights.
n Al Sharpton, Religious Bigot Al Sharpton’s new-found influence, in the wake of the Don Imus firing, is especially disgusting given Sharpton’s despicable character. Not only is the man a shameless race hustler (as noted above), but he’s also demonstrably a religious bigot, as has been revealed by his recent comments about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. Debating atheist author Christopher Hitchens on May 7, Sharpton had this to say about Mr. Romney: “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation.” Notwithstanding Sharpton’s lame attempt to explain away the comments by maintaining he was just differentiating himself from Hitchens, it’s fairly clear that by calling attention to Romney’s religious beliefs, Sharpton was trying to exploit anti-Mormon bigotry. Many professed “Christians,” unfortunately, regard Mormons as members of cults and not really “Christian” – which, of course, is silly, because all the various sects of Christianity could equally be considered cults, based on irrational beliefs. (See, for example, my previous entry, “Why I Am Not a Christian,” April 20, 2006.) It’s just as wrong for bigots like Sharpton to criticize Romney for his Mormonism as it was for anti-Catholic bigots to oppose John F. Kennedy’s candidacy in 1960 because he was Roman Catholic. A person’s conscience (his religious beliefs, or even the lack thereof, if he’s an atheist) is a private matter that ought have nothing to do with a person’s fitness for political office; indeed, that principle is mandated by an important (but often overlooked) clause in the U.S. Constitution, in Article VI, prohibiting any “religious Test” as a qualification for office. If Mitt Romney is unfit to be president – as I believe he is – it’s not because he’s a Mormon. Rather, it’s because as governor of Massachusetts, he socialized medicine in the state – and thus demonstrated that he holds a faith far more dangerous than Mormonism: a faith in the efficacy of government controls, i.e., in the welfare state.
n An Unfit Lawyer In June the North Carolina state bar is scheduled to consider whether Mike Nifong, the infamous Durham, N.C. prosecutor, ought to be disbarred because of his unjust prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players, erroneously charged with rape. Nifong certainly ought to be disbarred: no lawyer is more dangerous to society than an out-of-control prosecuting attorney who uses the powers of his office to destroy people’s lives – as he did the three former Duke students – in order to further his own political ambitions. In Nifong’s case, it’s reasonably clear why he continued to press charges against the three Duke lacrosse players: to exploit racial tensions and class prejudice, courting the black vote in Durham, N.C. and thus help get reelected as prosecutor. The lacrosse players were prosecuted because they were white males from wealthy families, charged with a serious crime by a black female who worked as a stripper to help pay her way through college. When Nifong’s office continued the prosecutions, even after the stripper’s story was proven to be incredible and the three young men had conclusive evidence of their innocence, it’s clear that race and class politics rather than considerations of justice were behind the case. Yet prosecutors like Nifong have a clear duty under the law to follow justice, and only justice, in exercising the broad discretionary powers of their office. Not only should Nifong be disbarred, but he also should be tried in criminal court for the abuse of his powers. And, to fully ensure that justice is done for the three innocent Duke students and their families, Nifong should be sued in civil court: at the very least, he should compensate the young men’s families for the cost of their legal defense against these false charges, as well as pay both compensatory and punitive damages for virtually ruining the lives of these fine young men.
n Call Her Madam (By Hook or By Crook?) Another legal case worth following this summer is that involving Deborah Jeane Palfrey, of Vallejo, California, the so-called “D.C. madam,” accused of running a Washington, D.C. prostitution ring. Ms. Palrey, charged in federal court with racketeering and money laundering associated with prostitution, has threatened to release phone records that could implicate former customers. The prospect of many famous politicians, government officials, and even media figures being clients of Ms. Palrey’s “escort” business has spurred the federal judge handling the case to bar Ms Palrey from releasing the information – thereby effectively depriving her of one defense, in the “court of public opinion.” This is a prosecution that ought not to be taking place, because prostitution ought not to be a crime. Ms. Palrey’s business – which she claims was a legal escort service, one that netted more than $2 million between 1993 and 2006 – isn’t any of the government’s business, for consenting adults in a free society ought to be able to do whatever they wish (including charge money for it), in the privacy of their own homes (or hotel rooms). As I wrote in my essay “In Defense of Sex” (May 16, 2005), In a society that fully protects sexual freedom, persons ought to be free to patronize not only bars or clubs where consenting adults may meet, for possible sexual encounters back in their privacy of their own homes, but also places that allow consenting adults to engage in sexual acts with each other, on the business premises: that is, places like bathhouses, “adult” movie theaters, strip clubs, nudist resorts, and of course, houses of prostitution. Prostitution, the so-called “second-oldest profession” (second only to farming, by many historians’ estimation), ought to be regarded as a perfectly legal activity and, indeed, a legitimate profession.
The criminalization of prostitution – along with other so-called “sex crimes,” as well as legal barriers to same-sex marriage, laws censoring so-called “obscene” speech, and the like – unfortunately shows how legal paternalism has stood in the way of the United States becoming truly a free society, one where the law respects individual freedom in all its legitimate aspects – including the freedom of adults to engage in sex, which is a perfectly “normal,” healthy, and natural thing for human beings to do.
n Fresh-Squeezed Juice During the weekend of the Kentucky Derby in May, O.J. Simpson – the notorious former professional football player who literally got away with murder – wanted to eat dinner at Jeff Ruby’s Steakhouse in Louisville. But shortly after being seated with 12 friends, “the Juice” was asked to leave by the restaurant’s owner, who told Simpson he was making other customers uncomfortable. Although Simpson was found not guilty in his 1995 criminal trial for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman (in a case whose verdict can be explained by the Simpson defense attorney’s successful exploitation of racial politics with an L.A. jury), he was subsequently found liable for their deaths in a civil case brought by the Brown and Goldman families. But Simpson continues to live the “good life” of celebrity golf tournaments and the like, failing to pay the judgment awarded the Browns and Goldmans – and, indeed, flouting his role in the slayings with his recently-aborted plans to publish his book If I Did It. Mr. Ruby, the restaurant owner, told the Associated Press, “I didn’t want to serve him because of my convictions of what he’s done to those families,” meaning the Browns and the Goldmans. “The way he continues to torture the lives of those families . . . with his behavior, attitude, and conduct,” Ruby said, adding that other patrons in the restaurant applauded his decision to throw Simpson out. In doing so, he was entirely within his rights as owner of the restaurant. Nevertheless, Simpson’s lawyers are threatening to file a lawsuit, claiming that Simpson was asked to leave based on race. Bravo to Mr. Ruby – and curses to Simpson and his lawyers!
n The Last Time I Saw Paris In other celebrity news, billionaire heiress Paris Hilton – whom many people see as living evidence in favor of confiscatory estate taxes – is scheduled to serve a prison sentence for violating the terms of her probation after being caught driving while intoxicated on a suspended driver’s license. Originally sentenced to 45 days for her crime, Ms. Hilton had her sentence cut in half – reduced to a mere 23 days – in consideration of her presumed “good behavior.” (Which seems ludicrous to anyone who has seen how irresponsibly she behaves on her Simple Life “reality” show on cable TV.) The L.A. sheriff’s department also has announced that, because of her fame, Hilton will be separated from the general inmate population at the Century Regionarl Detention Center in Lynwood. She will live in the “special needs housing unit” reserved for police officers, public officials, celebrity and other high-profile inmates – which should give plenty of fodder for Saturday Night Live or Mad TV skits over the summer. One might legitimately question whether Ms. Hilton’s special, favorable treatment is unjust, a violation of a basic principle of the rule of law, that the law should apply equally to all persons, regardless of wealth, fame, or power. Of course, one might also argue that, like other celebrity criminal defendants (Martha Stewart comes to mind), Ms. Hilton was prosecuted because she’s a celebrity, to “make an example” of her, and that’s unjust, too. Either way, one principle seems clear: Do the crime – do the time. Now, “that’s hot”!
n Viva La France! “Forty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong” was one of those supposed truisms proved to be fallacious by facts in recent history, as French voters elected a series of nationalistic, leftist, anti-U.S. (and indeed, even anti-Western) leaders in recent decades. However, it seems, the French people finally have come to their senses. In their recent presidential elections, French voters overwhelmingly rejected the socialist candidate, Segolene Royal, who would have been the first female French president, and instead elected the conservative candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy. He took office on May 17, replacing Jacques Chirac as France’s president, after 12 years in office. Immediately, pundits predicted that Sarkozy’s election could help repair ties with the United States, which were strained after Chirac rigorously opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Sarkozy reached out to the U.S. during his acceptance speech, saying that Americans could “count on our friendship.” Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant, also has promised to end the economic malaise that has dogged France for years, as a result of the country’s socialistic policies, which include labor laws that give unions virtually unlimited power and which prohibit anyone from working more than 35 hours a week. Such policies have given France, which has Europe’s second-biggest economy (behind Germany) a sluggish 2.1 percent economic growth (placing it 10th among European nations using the euro as currency) and an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent, among the highest in Europe. Sarkozy has proposed making overtime pay tax-free to encourage people to work more, tax cuts for businesses to spur economic growth, and laws making it easier for companies to hire and fire workers and to curb the ability of unions to strike. In short, he’s proposing a retreat from socialism and a few small steps toward a free-market economy – the only sure cure for France’s economic problems. Voter turnout was extraordinary (projected at 85 percent, a level not seen in France in 40 years), and with most of the ballots counted, Sarkozy had more than 53 percent of the vote. That’s a decisive rejection of socialism. Let’s hope American voters will be just as smart in 2008.
n Moore Idiocy Socialist propagandist Michael Moore has a new film coming out in June. Called “Sicko” (which would be an apt title for Moore’s biography), the movie attacks the U.S. health care system. Among other things, it shows Moore on a trip to Cuba, supposedly to get treatment for ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers – Moore’s pathetic attempt to tout Fidel Castro’s socialized medicine regime as his notion of the ideal. (For anyone familiar with Moore’s despicable anti-American, anti-capitalist views, it’s not surprising that he would be an apologist for Fidel Castro’s communist dictatorship in Cuba.) The U.S. Treasury Department has opened an investigation of Moore for possibly violating U.S. trade restrictions and the embargo on travel to Cuba. Moore’s response to the investigation, predictably, has been to try to paint it as a political attack by the Bush administration. Whether or not Moore actually broke the law in traveling to Cuba to film scenes for his film, it’s silly for the government to prosecute him: that would only play into his hands, giving him more fodder for his propaganda mill. Justice demands that rather than investigating Moore for possible criminal violations, the government ought to simply ignore him – and thereby help give him the anonymity he so richly deserves.
n They Keep Goosestepping On The anti-tobacco Nazis – those anti-smoking activists who advocate using the coercive powers of government to restrict people’s use of tobacco products – have been encouraged by their success in banning indoor smoking in businesses open to the public; they’re now pushing for even more draconian anti-smoking laws. (On smoking bans and why they violate everyone’s rights – including the property rights of business owners as well as the rights of both non-smokers and smokers alike – see my previous entry, “Smokers’ Rights as Everyone’s Rights,” Oct. 31, 2006.) Not content with banning smoking in public indoor places, anti-tobacco activists are now pushing to ban it in other places, as well. Several states (including Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana, as well as Vermont and Washington) prohibit foster parents from smoking around children, even in their homes and cars – and thus have obliterated the fundamental distinction between public and private places, using the dubious rationale that government’s interest in protecting the health of foster children empowers it to dictate smoke-free environments, under the theory that “secondhand smoke” threatens their health. How long will it take for government to expand the restrictions from foster parents to all parents, in the name of “saving the children” from the dangers of secondhand smoke? (In fact, as I noted in my Oct. 31 entry, there’s no scientifically demonstrable direct threat to non-smokers’ health from secondhand smoke; at most, it’s a statistically insignificant higher risk of possible heath problems.) And a new study by Stanford University researchers supposedly shows that outdoor cigarette smoke could pose risk for non-smokers. The study could help activists pushing for laws restricting outdoor smoking. More than 1000 communities now restrict outdoor smoking, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation (citing laws that curb smoking, for example, in parks, beaches, and other outdoor recreation spots, as well as near doors, ventilation systems, automated teller machines and even movie lines). Noting these developments, a recent article in USA Today observed that some people have questioned the need to regulate outdoor smoke. “If you burn anything, the smoke contains hundreds of noxious particles,” noted Simon Chapman, editor of the journal Tobacco Control and a professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health. He commented in an e-mail, “people get brief exposures to intense plumes of noxious smoke from barbecues, campfires, and home cooking, yet we don’t ban those.” (“Study: Outdoor smoke gets in your lungs,” USA Today, May 8.) Of course, when it comes to the anti-smoking Nazis, scientific fact has little to do with their desire to expand government control over people’s lives. What they really resent is allowing people to govern themselves – to decide whether or not to smoke, or to patronize establishments whose owners permit smoking – in other words, the freedom to take risks with one’s own life, which no government ought legitimately to interfere with, even under the guise of “protecting public health.” A nanny state isn’t my idea of a “healthy” society.
n The Three Most Beautiful Words in the English Language To those of us who are taking long car trips this summer, the three most beautiful words have to be the ones that appear on the sign: “End Road Work.”
n Summer of Atlas Everyone thinks the “hot” book this summer will be Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and final book of J. K. Rowlings’ extraordinarily popular fantasy series. But there’s another book that’s even hotter – or at least ought to be, in my opinion: Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s great philosophical novel, which is 50 years old this year. Half century after its first publication in 1957, Rand’s magnificent book is just as “relevant” today as it was then. Indeed, anyone sensing that there’s something terribly wrong with modern society will discover exactly what’s wrong by reading the book, which shows how important philosophy is to human beings. Rand’s novel reads like a suspense thriller, which it is: it tells the story of a man who threatens to “stop the motors of the world,” and who does do so – by simply going on strike (hence the title: Atlas, who carries the weight of the world on his shoulders, simply “shrugs”). What makes the book so remarkable, however, is that it’s not just a “good read,” a mystery thriller, but also one with an underlying philosophical theme. Far too many people fail, in Rand’s words, to “check their premises” – to examine the philosophical premises, or assumptions, upon which their view of the world rests. By using the novel to expound the philosophical system that she called Objectivism, Rand offers a systematic critique of all the “bromides” that underlay modern life: subjectivism and mysticism, an ethical code based on altruism (or self-sacrifice), and a politics based on collectivism (or government control) – to which Rand offers the only true antidotes: respect for objective reality and reason, an ethics based on rational self-interest, and a politics based on individual freedom and responsibility (in short, capitalism). (For more on Atlas Shrugged and Rand’s philosophy, see my tribute to Rand on her 100th birthday: my previous entry, “The Centenary of Ayn Rand,” January 31, 2005.) I think everyone ought to read Atlas Shrugged, because it’s the most important book written in the modern era; but it’s especially important reading for high school graduates about to begin college, or college graduates about to begin graduate school or to enter the job market this fall, because it will give young men and women the intellectual ammunition they need, to cope with all the nonsense they’ll face, in their classrooms or in the work place – and certainly in the world of politics.
n And a Summer of Three-quels At the movie theaters, summertime is typically a time for blockbuster movies and sequels. Summer 2007 is characterized not just by sequels, but by several “three-quels” – the third in a series of films -- the first three of which have already begun playing, in packed movie theaters, promising to break existing box-office records: Spider-Man 3 (which opened May 4), Shrek the Third (May 18), and Pirates of the Caribbean [3]: At World’s End (May 25). (When you see Pirates, be sure to stay through the credits because the final, significant scene in the movie follows the credits.) Other “threequels,” coming later in the summer, are Ocean’s Thirteen (June 8), The Bourne Ultimatum (August 3), and Rush Hour 3 (August 10). In addition to these “threequels,” there are other sequels that promise to be enjoyable movies to see this summer: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (June 15, with more outstanding special effects); Evan Almighty (June 22) (sequel to the hit Bruce Almighty, with Steve Carell replacing Jim Carrey but Morgan Freeman continuing in the role of God); Live Free or Die Hard (June 27, my favorite summer movie title, with Bruce Willis in his fourth Die Hard film); and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (July 13, which promises to be another effective film adaptation of a ponderous J.K. Rawlings novel). Finally, some other fun, summertime movies to look forward to seeing: Ratatouille (June 29, my second-favorite summer movie title, an animated comedy about a young rat who wants to give up eating garbage to become a French chef); Hairspray (July 20, the movie version of the musical, based on the original movie by John Waters, starring John Travolta in drag); The Simpsons Movie (July 27, which promises to be the first cartoon with full-frontal male nudity since Fritz the Cat); The Invasion (August 17, with Daniel Craig [the new James Bond] and Nicole Kidman in yet another remake of the 1950s sci-fi classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers); and The Last Legion (August 24) (a historical epic set in the British frontier during the last days of the Roman Empire). Have a great summer!
| Link to this Entry | Posted Monday, May 28, 2007 | Copyright © David N. Mayer |
|