Friday, June 30, 2006
|
Who needs it? |
Don't miss the end of the first paragraph of this, from Jack Balkin:
If Congress decides to alter the UCMJ and override the Geneva Conventions, the President can have his military tribunals with procedures as unfair as he wants. But that would require that Congress publicly decide (1) that it no longer wanted to abide by the principle of uniformity announced in the UCMJ, (2) that it no longer required that military commissions abide by the laws of war, or, finally, (3) that Congress no longer considered the Geneva Conventions binding on the United States. Taking any of those steps is possible-- particularly the first two-- but doing so requires that Congress make a public statement to this effect and pass new legislation. The President, in turn, can withdraw the United States from the Geneva Conventions, but for political and military reasons alike, there is almost no chance that he would do that.
What the Court has done is not so much countermajoritarian as democracy forcing. It has limited the President by forcing him to go back to Congress to ask for more authority than he already has, and if Congress gives it to him, then the Court will not stand in his way. It is possible, of course, that with a Congress controlled by the Republicans, the President might get everything he wants. However this might be quite unpopular given the negative publicity currently swirling around our detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. By forcing the President to ask for authorization, the Court does two things. First, it insists that both branches be on board with what the President wants to do. Second, it requires the President to ask for authority when passions have cooled somewhat, as opposed to right after 9/11, when Congress would likely have given him almost anything (except authorization for his NSA surveillance program, but let's not go there!). Third, by requiring the President to go to Congress for authorization, it gives Congress an opportunity and an excuse for oversight, something which it has heretofore been rather loathe to do on its own motion.
To the extent the Geneva Convention needs US acceptance to "live," can't you just count in these two paragraphs the number of ways in which this convention's life is now in danger?
To the average guy in the street, the Geneva Convention represents nothing more than a bunch of so-called "rights" we choose to give those who kidnap, torture, and execute our own kids.
I think Balkin has seriously overestimated the US public's thirst for assured terrorist rights. Scrapping the Geneva Convention -- at least in its current form -- might just turn out to be the most popular action of the Bush presidency.
UPDATE: I'm perfectly serious. To the average guy in the street the "Geneva Convention" is some document or other that gives loud critics the right to wag their fingers at us.
That's a cost. So what exactly are the benefits? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:06 AM |
Thursday, June 29, 2006
|
Give it up... |
By a 5-3 vote the US Supreme Court has now forced one of these two alternatives on us:
If the U.S. were to close down Guantanamo and send the detainees back to their home countries, some returnees would be freed and treated as heroes - and then rejoin the global jihad. Other released terrorists, or so the Europeans no doubt would whine, might be executed by the autocratic Middle Eastern governments in their homelands that are as afraid of Islamic terrorists as we are.
So, should we instead try all of the Guantanamo detainees inside the U.S.?
[If we instead try all the detainees inside the U.S. we will] be inviting thousands of lawyers and public defenders to argue, on behalf of their clients, that we are not in a real war but simply prosecuting common criminals. Numerous trials and appeals as costly and circus-like as the drawn-out spectacle of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) [will] likely follow. And, in the end, Europeans [will] still object, since the U.S. [will] be exposing foreign nationals to possible death-penalty sentences.
Our self-loathing, childish insistence on absolute cosmic justice may mean we simply do not deserve victory.
UPDATE: Then again, Andrew Cochrane invites NYT fans to consider all the upcoming political consequences of having gotten precisely what they wished for:
The decision is actually a huge political gift to President Bush, and the detainees will not be released that easily. The President and GOP leaders will propose a bill to override the decision and keep the terrorists in jail until they are securely transferred to host countries for permanent punishment. The Administration and its allies will release plenty of information on the terrorist acts committed by the detainees for which they were detained (see this great ABC News interview with the Gitmo warden). They will also release information about those terrorist acts committed by Gitmo prisoners after they were released. They will challenge the "judicial interference with national security" and challenge dissenting Congressmen and civil libertarians to either stand with the terrorists or the American people. The Pentagon will continue to release a small number of detainees as circumstances allow. The bill will pass easily and quickly. And if the Supremes invalidate that law, we'll see another legislative response, and another, until they get it right. Just watch.
I'd like to think Cochrane is right about the legislative branch, but I have my doubts.
UPDATE II: Via Michelle Malkin:
U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Hamdan case:
"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.
"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.
"In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, 'Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.'
"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."
So I suppose we'll now find whether our legislative branch thinks we're really at war or whether they really believe it's all just a colorful figure of speech. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:27 AM |
|
Wal-Mart Revisited |
In this debate, Barbara Ehrenreich's responses are priceless.
UPDATE: Oh, and by the way, did you think that each and every Wal-Mart employee can always leave and find work elsewhere if he or she wishes -- and that this tends to regulate what Wal-Mart and everyone else can or can't pay? And did you think Wal-Mart lowers the cost of living of working people?
Hey, your thoughts are clouded by a false dichotomy !
Elsewhere I've commented on left/liberalism's love of the metaphor. I have to expand that line of thought to include the following: left socioeconomic theorizing seems based not on the methods of science but rather the methods of movie reviewing, literary criticism, or perhaps simple midrash.
Don't trust your lying eyes, but listen to me says the progressive social critic. I will uncloud your thoughts with my superior analysis.
UPDATE: Yes, this all goes back to Marx and we can blame it on all that pseudo-, neo-, and post-Marxism we learned in college.
Basic scientific thinking starts with observation and the idea our eyes don't lie to us. Basic Marxism insists the superstructure has been constructed to further the interests of the owning class. In other words: don't trust your eyes. They lie. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:21 AM |
|
Only in Palestine... |
Among all peoples of the Earth, who but the Palestinians would be the ones to call a press conference and proudly proclaim they had used chemical weapons?
Apparently the claim is questionable. Never mind. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:42 AM |
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
|
Supercessionism Revisited |
Those interested in the proposition that Christianity's purpose was to superceed Judaism (just google "supercessionism" for more -- I've been trying to stay away from this stuff for some time now) may be interested in the new Superman movie.
UPDATE: And before you overreact for any reason please check out this article, which shows these aspects of the new movie really represent nothing particularly new. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:58 AM |
|
A Modest Research Proposal |
Will somebody please calculate the impact of the Clintonian "midnight regulations" with the Bushovian "memoranda"?
With respect to exactly how much impact each exerted, I suspect if these are measurable Clinton "wins" because the economic impact of his arbitrary power grabs was so dramatic.
And if that ever-prized feature "transparency" is what we're looking for, Bush wins hands down. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:43 AM |
|
Why tax arguments now make me yawn... |
Last year I saw detailed numbers showing US state and local taxation to be so regressive it completely washes out the progressivity of federal taxes. The numbers are so dramatic they completely swamp the prissy little differences so important to mouth-breathing "tax cuts for the rich!" folks.
The US tax system as a whole takes a slightly higher percentage of poorer (as contrasted with richer) peoples' income, in other words. To make matters really depressing, it seems taxes on alcohol and tobbaco products (not to mention sales of lottery tickets) are the ones making the biggest differential impact. (If you believe US poverty is at least in part generated by poor peoples' behavior, in other words, you're likely to be delighted to find tax regressivity also generated by behavior!)
So if you want to continue in the direction of increasing regressivity of US taxes, vote for this proposed new tax! |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:18 AM |
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
|
My line in the sand... |
The issue is no longer the appropriateness of amnesty for those who have killed American troops.
Rather, the issue now is what we should do or think when American troops start being killed by those to whom amnesty has been granted.
I support the Iraq War and the Bush administration up to and only up to that point.
UPDATE: Maybe my pessimism is unfounded. What might be emerging is the proposition the war on terror is a matter of law enforcement after all -- but only after it's been a matter for the military. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:31 AM |
Monday, June 26, 2006
|
This as in all else... |
| Apparently the Hi Priests of the US Supreme Court are now scheduled to give us a final ruling on the Great Global Warming Controversy. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:09 PM |
|
The new "Cold War"... |
| Perhaps the best commentary on how sad, irrelevant, and useless The Nation magazine has become is this "new" article by Steven Cohen (hard to see why last year's needed updating) and the article's automatically-generated link to this commentary. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:34 AM |
|
I'm sure it's unintentional, but... |
The headlines (e.g. "Democrats Angered by Troop Withdrawal Proposal") are playing into the popular vision of non-Republican incoherence.
If they're in favor of withdrawal how can it be withdrawal plans make them angry? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:17 AM |
Friday, June 23, 2006
|
Something is seriously wrong here... |
| If I read this correctly, within six months those who tortured and beheaded our troops may be released under an amnesty program -- even as some of our own are being tried for alleged departures from the rules of engagement. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:24 AM |
Thursday, June 22, 2006
|
Suspect because of its funding... |
Here's one of those reports with conclusions that we might question because the whole thing is financed by a segment of the energy industry with a financial stake in the status quo.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mention the segment I'm talking about is the government regulatory component of the industry. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:45 AM |
|
Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now? |
The Clintonistas who authored the North Korea Policy Review (which arguably got us into the current perilous mess) now call for a preemptive strike on the North Korea missile before its fueling is complete.
And their oh-so-cute little hissy stabs at the Bush administration ("unwisely ballyhooed the doctrine of 'preemption,' which all previous presidents have sustained as an option rather than a dogma" -- emphasis mine) only undermines the credibility of what may be a very good suggestion.
UPDATE: And we have to ask two questions:
1. If, as stated, all previous presidents have sustained preemption as an option, why is it so doggone difficult to come up with examples of previous administrations' premptive military engagements?
2. If, as stated, preemption is now Bush administration dogma, why are the Korean missiles still standing? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:14 AM |
Friday, June 16, 2006
|
Some things never change... |
In searching for some link to the current WSJ series on poverty I discover this article by David Wessel from last year.
It would appear he merely re-writes the same series on a yearly basis.
I've only seen yesterday's contribution to this year's series, but in neither it nor in this online version of last year's series do I find that one very-important word that helps determine the poverty rate: immigration. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:45 AM |
Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
Unless maintained permanently... |
Malthus pointed out that temporary charity creates more misery than it alleviates, because people "accomodate" to temporary situations as if they were permanent.
What's worried me from the start about charitable activities such as these is not the ongoing vandalism directed against water facilities left untended out in the desert, but rather tha unreliable nature of volunteers themselves.
Put the matter this way. How many illegals have died because volunteers failed to show up to distribute the water? Anyone who's ever had anything to do with charitable volunteer organizations will tell you "no-shows" (especially on weekends) are just as typical as, let's say, vandalism directed at untended open-air water jugs.
UPDATE: And just by the way, just who are these vandals, anyway? The media and do-good community can't stop stuffing their faces with a redmeat vision of anti-immigrant racist zenophobes cruising through the desert poking holds in blue water tanks.
But for every one anti-immigration-redneck there are at least four or five hundred illegals. Are all these illegal immigrants saints? Isn't it possible some of them like to take water and make things, uh, maybe a little more "difficult" for those coming after them? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:17 AM |
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
|
Economic rationality... |
The average American family pays roughly $13,000 per year in local, state, and federal taxes, while it saves about $2000 by shopping at Wal-Mart.
Given those two facts how in the world could anyone think opposition to Wal-Mart might be a winning issue for someone running for local, state, or federal office?
Thomas Riehle at Real Clear Politics:
The temptation to "stand up to Wal-Mart" as a campaign ploy reflects the sometimes cocooning and self-deceptive nature of Democratic Party activists. Indeed, in RT Strategies polls we consistently find that the most vociferously anti- Wal-Mart groups are Northeast and West Coast liberals who themselves rarely or never shop at Wal-Mart, shunning the retailer as not worthy of their patronage. They cannot understand how others fail to reach the same conclusion. At the extreme, such a person as a Democratic candidate for office might even want to suggest a few new laws or regulatory interpretations to help those who cannot help but dally in the devil's workshop. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:34 AM |
Monday, June 12, 2006
|
Supernatural Chicago |
 Friday night the family attended Neil "Necromancer" Tobin's "Supernatural Chicago" show at that elegant (and reputedly haunted) Chicago Gold Coast night spot "Excalibur."
What a treat -- an impecably researched magico-psychic lecture on supernatural aspects of Chicago's history. Tobin's premise is simple: Chicago is the city that burned down only to be rebuilt on the ashes. It is therefore very much a city of ghosts!
And fun ghosts they are in Tobin's show. Victims of the St. Valentine's day massacre mysteriously pair up despite audience members' random sorting of the names. An otherwise disturbing tale of child abandonment gets hypothetically retold in Chicago's varying ethic neighborhoods as Tobin correctly predicts the audiences' collective cartoon depiction of the legendary "Devil Baby of Hull House." A fun and very low-key seance simulation ends the evening -- my family is still arguing over whether those ghostly "taps on the shoulder" were generated by the power of suggestion alone!
Magic is not dead, at least not for anyone still interested in having a few fun shivers once in awhile. When you're next in Chicago, check out Excalibur on Friday night -- and be sure to get there by 8 pm to catch Neil "Necromancer" Tobin's great show. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:48 PM |
Saturday, June 10, 2006
|
There's no such thing as... |
E.J. Dionne (who?) seems to be noticing even the free lunch offered by soaking the rich is now more-than-counterbalanced, in voters' minds, by the costly ineffectiveness of public sector spending programmes.
In English: California voters realize even if it doesn't cost them anything (a) the money will still be wasted, and (b) it will sooner or later wind up costing them something no matter what the politicians now say.
UPDATE: Interesting how Dionne just doesn't get it, even when he writes it! |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:49 AM |
Friday, June 09, 2006
|
Slow evolution of two ideas... |
I am coming to think there are only two distinctions among opponents in U.S. socioeconomic policy discussions.
First is the issue of everyday life's basic "fairness." Ask the question: under normal/average circumstances do people generally "get" what they work for or deserve? If you say "no" you're a Democrat. And if you're brave enough to say "yes" you're either a traditional economist or a conservative Republican.
In concentrated form this issue separates opponents and proponents of the inheritance tax. Bequests are the accumulated net sum of a lifetime's work. Do these sums represent legitimate private property or something akin to -- well, theft?
And this brings us around to the second distinction -- one's capacity for metaphor. The more liberal the Democrat, the deeper and more sincere is the love of metaphor. Bush is Hitler. Our troops are terrorists. Rich childrens' inheritances are funds pilfered from the poorbox.
And, now, fast food is pollution. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:33 AM |
Thursday, June 08, 2006
|
A theory regarding the estate tax... |
My theory -- add it to all the others -- is based on many decades' personal involvement in a family business.
The theory is simple. Once we lived in an America with a bewlildering array of corner lunch counters, interesting bookstores, individualistic neighborhood clothiers, tailors, dressmakers, appliance shops each with its own unique spin on what the owner thought you wanted -- lots of small individualistic enterprises that, like family farms, got passed down through the family from one generation to the next.
The estate tax replaced all these with McDonalds, Borders, The Gap, the ubiquitous extended warrantee, and ADM.
So the theory is simple: the basic method of passing business expertise from one generation to the next -- the family business enterprise -- has been replaced by the franchise operation, all thanks to your friendly neighborhood death tax.
And the next time some smart social reformer demands you watch his heart bleed for all the small local businesses Wal-Mart is killing, just ask him -- "so what do you think the interitance tax is doing?" |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:28 AM |
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
|
San Diego Election |
| Via Kauss here's the best site for up to date results. If you want to test voter response to the immigration issue, you have to add Bilbray and Griffith's percentages. (At last count: 53.02% on the side of the "House" approach. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:17 AM |
|
What those flying cars ran on in Blade Runner... |
| What am I missing? Via Instapundit we find news of a breakthrough in the production of cheap hydrogen. Visions of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars, etc., etc. but -- isn't the most plentiful of all greenhouse gasses water vapor? Won't all those hydrogen fuel-cell-powered cars emit --- WATER VAPOR!!!???!!! |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:25 AM |
|
Iran -- what gives? |
Captain Ed (whose analysis is based in part on our good friend Jon Henke's thoughts -- read it all and follow the links):
[T]he only real solution will be to offer the nuclear technology while retaining control of the nuclear fuel -- again, the Russian solution repackaged with our preferred technology with the trade assistance that only the US can provide. How difficult a sell will that be? Long-memoried readers will recall that John Kerry and John Edwards offered a similar solution -- as an opening bid! -- and got slammed during the election for that position. (Iran, as irascible as ever under Mohammed Khatami's rule, turned him down.) Using this as a last-ditch effort to contain Iranian nuclear ambitions will no doubt give Kerry reason to crow about this Bush "flip-flop". Members of his own party will likely oppose it just on the basis of the lack of trust in the frequently non-rational, anti-Semitic nature of the Iranian leadership.
I'm not sure that this offer will ever get accepted. It looks more like a final move to show that we would present as much flexibility as possible without giving up on the key goal of stopping Iranian uranium enrichment. In that sense, the offer is brilliant. If Iran accepts it outright along with a verification regime that ensures their compliance, it still gives us a trade-off that will put Iranian nuclear development off for enough time to hopefully see a more rational government replace the mullahcracy. Bush has positioned the US perfectly to either accept this diplomatic solution or to pursue tougher options with little difficulty. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:18 AM |
Monday, June 05, 2006
|
So tell me again, when was WW II? |
Michael Barone:
Americans are in a sour mood, a mood that may be explained by the lack of a sense of history. The military struggle in Iraq (nearly 2,500 military deaths) is spoken of in as dire terms as Vietnam (58,219), Korea (54,246) or World War II (405,399). We bemoan the cruel injustice of $3 a gallon for gas in a country where three-quarters of people classified as poor have air conditioning and microwave ovens. We complain about a tide of immigration that is, per U.S. resident, running at one-third the rate of 99 years ago.
George W. Bush has a better sense of history. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:51 AM |
|
Everyone grows up sometime... |
| Europe appears to be moving on and looking past its crippling post-colonialism-guilt. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:33 AM |
Saturday, June 03, 2006
|
Just in case you're wondering... |
In this context "GTA" refers to the "greater Toronto area."
And it is being asked everywhere: why Toronto, London, Paris, Brussels -- and not New York?
UPDATE: Maybe I'm just dumb, but as I read this and its associated comments over and over again I can't help concluding these people genuinely believe terrorist violence is an aspect of constitutionally protected free speech. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:13 PM |
|
MajorAdvertiser
Superior Table Pad
EconoWriters
Don ("EconoGonzo") Luskin
Bartlett/NRO
Bartlett/trendmacro
EverythingIKnowisWrong
Sowell
Steve Verdon
Truck&Barter
Musil
Picerno
Kling/EconLog
Galt/Asymmetrical
DeLong
Drezner
Hobbs
Kiesling
Brown
Samuelson
OMBWatch
MISES
ChicagoBoyz
Blankenship
Centrists.org
Krugman
EconoData
Economagic
BEA
BLS
FREDII
UNCLE SAM'S REFERENCE SHELF
EIA WORLD OIL PRICES & MKT
OMB
CBO
BUDGET HIST TABLES
U.S. Treasury Yields
TaxFacts
FAIRMODEL
OECD
CEE
CRB INDICES
Taxblog
Memri
EPI
EIA
ITEP
CATO
COMMANDING HEIGHTS
SBSC
NAM
ARGMAX
Reference Desk
Info Please
Google News
Economic Calendar
Babelfish Translation
Reporter's Desktop
Cost of Living Comparator
EconoPolitics
TechCentralStation
DRUDGE
CommandPost
WSJOpinionJournal
NationalReview
Instapundit
Rosenblog
Front Page
Nation
New Republic
Monthly Review
Kaus
Larry Kudlow
Milt Rosenberg
EconoArchives
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003
07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003
09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003
10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003
11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
EconoTipJar
EconoEmail
steven.antler@gmail.com
Site Feed
|
