There are always a lot of people so afraid of rocking the boat that they stop rowing.
We can never get ahead that way.
Harry S. Truman
Pleased By Reader Response to Two Recent Posts
I think of my posts like my own children. (No, I don't have any real children.) I guess I can relate to my Mom saying she loves all of her kids equally. I think I've written a lot of very interesting posts over the past week, unlike anything I've read elsewhere, so I can't say I'm surprised when a couple of posts get significant readership; if I knew the formula, I might repeat it.
Yesterday's post includes a unique rant where I walk the reader through a number of ways Obama spins his economic messages, what he says and what he doesn't say, and then I really go after Obama on his disingenuous "social darwinism" criticism (specifically directed after Paul Ryan's budget). I think Reason's Matt Welch also pointed out (see discussion below) how patently absurd Obama was in describing a plan that shows the budget EXPANDING, not contracting over the coming decade in Draconian terms.
But on the social darwinism charge, the libertarian community seems more concerned with Hofstadler's smear of Spencer, which I cover; I went beyond that, though, because I wanted to draw attention to the fact that Hofstadler was anti laissez-faire (as is Obama, although he pays lip service to a free market; he doesn't, of course: that's why you need a 2000-page reform here, a 3000-page reform there, the government has to fund alternative energy efforts, manage bankruptcies, etc.) There is a broader attack that is being made that progressive government, not traditional institutions (church social services), volunteer organizations, philanthropy, etc., is necessary to ensure adequate quality care for the needy. In fact, we free marketers don't concede the argument. I may write a follow-up post addressing this point, but the interested reader may find a sample historical perspective from the Sutherland Institute.
The MSNBC segment in the Reason video (cited below) shows a recent poll showing Romney trailing Obama in double-digits among female independents. This is precisely one of the reasons why I wrote another popular recent post recommending the VP selection of retiring Texas US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
No Wonder I Don't Watch MSNBC...
Reason today uploaded an interview of its editor Matt Welch made (in a joint appearance with other guests) on Melissa Harris-Perry (an MSNBC weekend talk show host). The principal motivation was to hear Welch respond to one of the topics of discussion--the Florence (strip search for any offense) SCOTUS decision. The faithful reader will recall that I came down strongly against the decision, but I really didn't find in my searches at the websites of Reason and Cato Institute any relevant discussion of the court decision. (This may be an artifact of my search processes.) The interview clip (available here: I will not embed because it doesn't meet my standards) also covers judicial activism and Social Darwinism.
I know Jerome Groopman wrote a well-known book on how doctors think; the host and guests have different backgrounds (including lawyers), but I found the interview all over the place and rather odd. For example, the host somehow jumps from discussion of being strip searched at the discretion of jail management to privacy within the context of abortion. There is a side discussion of racial profiling on the NJ turnpike. (Florence is a man of color living in New Jersey, but the racial issue had not surfaced in the news stories I've watched or read.)
A faithful reader to this blog knows that I'm pro-life on the abortion issue. Let me briefly address how I see the issue of privacy. I think major life decisions, your personal information and conversations, and what you do or say on your property are generally your own business. (There are some basic exceptions: for instance, relevant people have a right to know if you have a communicable disease, and the unalienable rights of others must be respected.) I see the purchase or sale of artificial birth control (given adequate disclosure of safety) as a matter of economic liberty; the state should not intervene in relevant transactions for sexually-mature individuals. I see elective abortion, particularly at the point that the preborn child has a functioning nervous system and organs, as a violation of the child's right to live. (Given the dependent nature of a child on her parents, I find that the infant's state of development (inside or outside the womb) is an arbitrary distinction.)
There was an odd discussion of the Florence case, which seemed to suggest a strip search was aimed at screening the individual detainee for communicable health issues (e.g., open sores) before sending him into the general jail population. What puzzles me is that the panelists weren't looking at more general concepts. For instance, I have a general right for the state (or other individuals) to leave me alone. Actions like searches violate negative rights. Conceptually it doesn't matter what the nature of my property is (e.g., my home or my car) and it also includes a search on my person (regardless of where I am), monitoring my private conversations, etc. (This is implicitly acknowledged, for instance, in terms of providing a suspect's right to speak confidentially with his lawyer, even if detained in a government facility.)
The state's imposition on one's unalienable rights must be within the context of due process and must be reasonable. What I consider reasonable includes probable cause for conducting the search and maintaining the suspect's dignity at all times. The Florence decision fails miserably on that score. In essence, the justices failed to safeguard the suspect's dignity from arbitrary searches; I mentioned in my Florence commentary that it's clear that some would be more likely to smuggle items into jail, e.g., suspects with known contacts in the jail population, recidivists, etc., and less likely in others, e.g., random nature of the arrest, no prior criminal record, etc.
Finally, I want to briefly discuss the concept of judicial activism.What we conservatives mean by "judicial activism" really involves things like unilaterally declaring centuries-old marriage or abortion (and/or other traditional) laws unconstitutional on some novel basis, or, say, a Colorado judge ordering the state to spend $2B more money in K-12 education; taxes and spending are authorized by the legislative branch, not the bench.
Liberals argue that conservatives are hypocritical and conservative jurists engage as "activists", e.g., Gore v Bush, Citizens United, and others. I think that's a red herring; liberals simply disagree with outcomes. It's not surprising that Presidents with an activist agenda, like FDR and Barack Obama, do not like a principled judiciary rejecting their expansionist, unprecedented initiatives.
I do think there's an asymmetric aspect here between progressive and conservative jurists. I do think that conservative judges are more mindful of the law of unintended consequences and less likely by principle to introduce a discontinuity in the status quo by reversing a major precedent and hence are more likely to sustain a wrongly-decided precedent.
However, I do not think conservative jurists are slaves to precedent. I do think when progressives test the boundaries by unduly restricting fundamental liberties, e.g., banning gun possession (DC v Heller) or discriminating against corporate speech (Citizens United), SCOTUS should reverse policy and/or provide relevant judicial guidance and clarification. We'll have to wait and see what SCOTUS says about ObamaCare. I strongly believe that the liberals have overplayed their hand by unduly restricting a citizen's economic liberty in procuring healthcare services. ObamaCare went beyond reinsuring for catastrophic expenses across the whole population, requiring businesses and/or individuals to purchase a bundle of health products and services and/or through an intermediary party that a captive citizen purchaser doesn't want or need.
I think there's a point here regarding the mandate that really isn't well understood. Health "insurance" has become a way for special-interest groups to socialize their expenses, a backdoor redistributionist scheme. The mandate would become a blank check written on the backs of captive policyholders.
Finally, in Gore v Bush, the Court pointed out that Florida had violated Equal Protection and then made a pragmatic decision to ensure that Florida electoral votes would count in the imminent Electoral College, guided by Constitutional requirements; I should also point out that Bush won two statewide machine-scored counts, and the Gore campaign had attempted to introduce an intrinsically more unreliable subjective scoring mechanism (something no competent behavioral researcher would do and opens the possibility of manipulated elections).
A side note: I differ from some conservatives in the sense I am less persuaded by long-standing "busybody" / victimless crime legislation, e.g., sodomy and alcohol prohibition. For example, gay relationships have existed for centuries, and many, if not most of adults similarly had consumed alcoholic beverages. Whatever the positive intent for such legislation, I don't think you can put the genie back into the bottle
Mike Wallace: RIP
My favorite Sunday news magazine anchor Chris Wallace lost his dad, a legendary TV reporter in his own right; my thoughts and wishes are with Chris and the rest of the Wallace family members on their loss.
Sixty Minutes (until the Dan Rather scandal) was one of my favorite shows, for 5 (non-consecutive) seasons (starting in 1979-80) was the #1 prime-time show on television.
The following sample Mike Wallace interview clip is a natural selection given my numerous criticisms of the SCOTUS Kelo decision.
[For more information on the Institute for Justice, see here and/or subscribe to its Youtube channel here.]
Vignettes
- Todd Richissin: "Toward the end of our interview, I asked [Mike Wallace] what he was most proud of over his long career. I expected him to bring up one of his toe-to-toe, fist-to-chin, ask-anything-and-everything interviews. He didn't. He was proud of his career, clearly. But he changed the subject and nodded toward Chris. "The fact that I have him and my grandchildren and my daughter and her children and [wife] Mary and her kids -- I can't tell you how satisfying that is," he said.
- FNC Interview/Roger Ailes: "spoke about a conversation he had with Mike Wallace about his son, “Mike had great admiration for Chris and he told me things, he said you know Chris has got some things I don’t have. Chris has a kind of gentle approach to things but he’s as dogged as his father in terms of going after the truth.”
C. WALLACE: Well, I have another idea for a target for your next interview. And the question is, what would you like to ask this fellow?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP
C. WALLACE: It's October 30th. William's three-week birthday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
C. WALLACE: Grandson. What would you like to ask him?
M. WALLACE: He's a good looking kid, isn't he?
C. WALLACE: Yes. He takes after his mother.
M. WALLACE: That's right, he does.
C. WALLACE: Well, it's a great book. It is a great life. I couldn't be prouder of both. And I love you.
M. WALLACE: I love you. And I'm proud of you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
C. WALLACE: After that, I had to remind myself there's no crying in Sunday morning talk shows.Political Humor
[From Beliefnet:] A letter written in a childish scrawl came to the post office addressed to "God". A postal employee, not knowing exactly what to do with the letter, opened it and read: "Dear God, my name is Jimmy. I am 6 years old. My father is dead and my Mom is having a hard time raising me and my sister. Would you please send us $500?" The postal employee was touched. He showed the letter to his fellow workers and all decided to kick in a few dollars each and send it to the family. They were able to raise $300.A couple of weeks later the same post office received a second letter addressed to God. The boy thanked God for the recent infusion of cash, but ended with this request: "Next time would you send the money directly to us? If you send it through the post office they deduct $200."
[God should write back, explaining that the IRS had Him withhold the rest for gift taxes... Mark 12:17]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Doobie Brothers, "It Keeps You Running"
