You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
|
|
« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 » May 31, 2006Do You Wonder About These Things, Too?Not that I read Ann Coulter on a regular basis, but I did come across the intro to one of her recent columns: However the Duke lacrosse rape case turns out, one lesson that absolutely will not be learned is this: You can severely reduce your chances of having a false accusation of rape leveled against you if you don't hire strange women to come to your house and take their clothes off for money.This got me thinking: how might the heavy publicity about the scandal have actually had an effect at the margin? I think that if the quantity of stripping has gone down, that would imply that "lessons" have indeed been learned. The coverage has been rather intense, which surely will change the perceptions of relevant actors about the probability of something going wrong with hiring a stripper for a private performance. First, strippers may raise the marginal cost of supply by demanding higher wages to compensate for dangerous working conditions. Further, strippers, or their agencies, might also have added the cost of a bouncer to accompany the talent to offsite performances. Second, and probably more significantly, clients (or is it patrons? or Johns?) may raise the expected value of indirect costs associated with accusations. Together, the price of hiring a stripper must have risen over the past few months. Because hiring a stripper is something of a luxury, I expect the demand curve must be rather elastic, so even these small increases in price will have led to a drop-off in consumption. I also assume that taking the party to a gentleman's lounge must be a close substitute, though I don't know the relative differences in cost of alcohol, transportation, and time. If only I had some data. Sadly, I don't think anyone is keeping tabs on this. At least not the Bureau of Labour Statistics. I know because I asked them, and an economist there was game enough to reply: Zach,That list is pretty amusing anyway. (But I do wonder what strippers put on their tax returns.) Alas, Ms. Coulter will have to remain merely theoretically wrong. Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:17 PM | Comments (30) John McCain's Immigration ProblemThis post at The American Scene is worthwhile food for thought (as are most posts at The American Scene, which should be read more often). In a stark contrast to the Fred Barnes piece from yesterday, Ross Douthat argues that McCain's efforts to find a middle ground on immigration can sink his 2008 presidential aspirations. The base, he says, supports harsher immigration restrictions and McCain's reformist impulses will alienate him from the base, the way his comments against the religious right separated him from the base in 2000 and McCain-Feingold cut him off from libertarian conservatives prior to that. The immigration issue doesn't really interest me all that much as an issue, despite the consecutive posts on it. However, I think the ink spilled on immigration reveals how big the issue is, and how important getting it "right" is for the GOP (and, to a lesser extent, the Democrats, though you don't hear about that as much). Personally, I think the restrictions-only crowd (send 'em home and build a Great Wall of Mexico) offers a simplistic solution to a complex problem that is likely to fail and could end up being the national GOP's Proposition 187, effectively ending President Bush's efforts to reach out to Latino voters. But I'll be darned if I can think of a better idea that doesn't make a mockery of our current immigration/naturalization process and isn't a sop to the big agricultural industries that have aided and abetted our illegal immigration problem in many cases. Am I naive in thinking there is a third way between selling out to big agriculture and looking suspiciously at anyone speaking Spanish? Posted by David Darlington at 09:07 PM | Comments (3) May 30, 2006The GOP's Immigration ProblemFred Barnes on why House Republicans cannot stand in the way of comprehensive immigration reform. Barnes argues blocking everything but more enforcement would be disasterous for the GOP. Posted by David Darlington at 05:08 PM | Comments (12) Fun FactPosted by Zach Wendling at 07:27 AM | Comments (0) May 29, 2006Lunch with BayhAs Josh noted last week, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D) met with Hoosier Bloggers in Indianapolis for lunch and an hour-long Q&A session (my roundup of reactions is here). As Senator Bayh himself remarked, it's no secret that he's making all the right moves for a Presidential run. It's flattering and interesting that Bayh and his staff consider a small meeting with bloggers to be one of those moves. No doubt, Bayh is interested in also reaching out to bloggers in key states like New Hampshire and Iowa, and it behooved Bayh to meet first with his homestate crowd. This meeting was, like his proto-campaign, an exploration: are bloggers a force to be courted, defanged, or safely ignored? The answer is probably all three, as individual bloggers vary considerably. It's also unclear how powerful new media are. The blogosphere, Hoosier or otherwise, cannot claim to have propelled any major candidate to office, nor have blogs been as effective as special interest groups at pushing legislation. There are some encouraging signs, though: the Dean campaign pioneered online activism and, most importantly, fundraising. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is finding persistent support from the quixotic Porkbusters. Astute staffers might already be reading the Kossack manifesto Crashing the Gate:Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics. And blogs quickly corrected Dan Rather when he tried to peddle forged documents as news in the last presidential election. Ironically, it may be on this last point that Bayh expressed his initial impression of blogs. Bayh styles himself as a dynamic moderate, rising above destructive partisan warfare. He stressed that in order for the national dialogue (and his prospective campaign) to move forward, Republican attacks will need to be blunted. The implied message at the lunch: "And that's where you guys come in." Whether the (Hoosier) blogosphere is willing and able to come in also remains to be seen, which is, of course, why meeting with them is so important. Like any bloc of supporters, bloggers will need to be wooed. Likewise, in order to continue to have access to power, bloggers will have to demonstrate their value. I didn't really see either of these things going on at the lunch. Perhaps I'm biased because I'm a meta-blogger, but I expected the discussion to focus much more on new media. If it doesn't in the future, I won't really see the point in continuing such meetings. Bayh's staff might not either. (cross-posted at the Indiana Blog Review) Posted by Zach Wendling at 09:05 AM | Comments (2) May 28, 2006Harping on BordersTwo months ago, the blogosphere piled on Borders bookstores for refusing to carry an issue of the small magazine Free Inquiry, which published the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. At the time, Virginia Postrel wondered: Borders is doing Free Inquiry a favor any month it stocks the dinky title. Tiny magazines aren't exactly a profit center. (I'm skeptical of FI's claim to sell 7,000 issues on the newsstand, especially if Borders only stocks 1,000.)Now we have an answer: Prof. Volokh reports that Borders is carrying the latest issue of Harper's Magazine, which also publishes the cartoons. One could expound at length as to how Borders' executive are hypocrites as well as cowards and so forth, but suffice it to say that they are simply a bunch of buttholes. Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:44 AM | Comments (1) May 27, 2006The Indy 500A couple of my good friends are Indy 500 princesses this year. Each year one is selected as the Indy 500 Queen, who gets the honor of kissing the race's winner. But with Danica Patrick in the race again, the Indianapolis Star asks a good question: what happens if she wins? Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:43 AM | Comments (10) May 26, 2006Court: Lawrence Doesn't Protect Plural MarriagesThis week the Utah Supreme Court upheld the bigamy conviction of a polygamist but split over whether Lawrence v. Texas reaches beyond consensual sex between same-sex couples. The dissent, penned by Chief Justice Christine Durham, found that the bigamy laws unconstitutionally burden the "free exercise of religion and the privacy of the intimate, personal relationships between consenting adults." Durham's dissent is persuasive, particularly since the "married" adults in question were not married through the state; only through a religious ceremony. The language of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision affirmed the right to sexual privacy, finding that private homosexual conduct is encompassed within it. The right to privacy affirmed in Lawrence is more than "simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct." The Court made sure to note a "substantive dimension of fundamental significance" of the right to private, consensual sexual conduct. Why should this not apply to three consenting adults? Chief Justice Durham did vote to uphold the husband's conviction of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and she argued that the state should prosecute the other crimes that may arise from polygamy - welfare fraud, incest, child abuse, and domestic violence - but that given the Court's ruling in Lawrence, polygamists have a constitutional right to sexual privacy. Utah's statutes may have declared polygamy harmful, but it is hard to see how people who enter a non-state-sanctioned relationship directly harm the state. I think this is partially why beloved Christian author C.S. Lewis wrote the following: There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.Utah's polygamists should be free to create their own religious marriages, and evangelicals can and should construct their own as well. But when they do, the state should remain out of it and only concern itself with those that are state-sanctioned. Of course this has a direct impact on gay marriage as well. The debate over gay marriage almost always involves some form of a slippery slope argument, typically by those opposed to it, and polygamy is often chief among them. If we allow gay marriage, the argument goes, what is stopping any type of marriage, such as one between three people? Those advocating gay marriages or civil unions will usually argue such a result is ridiculous, unlikely, or both. Yet the conflict in Utah and the conflicting case law demonstrate it is a real possibility. An ancient federal case, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), offers this interesting language: Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the poverty rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.Although the opinion is well over a hundred years old, I think you'd find significant agreement with the sentiments behind it from most citizens today. I certainly agree with the Court's view that marriage is "the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution." But it is precisely for that reason that I feel the state should stay away from marriage and leave it to churches and social groups to create their own. And when they do, the disctinction should be sharp, clear, and free from state intervention. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:00 AM | Comments (7) Hey Josh...You've been zinged by Joe Carter. Actually, I think you got off easy. Posted by David Darlington at 09:54 AM | Comments (0) May 24, 2006WowThis Fox News headline made me bust out laughing: "Al Gore's Global Warming Movie: Could It Destroy Our Economy?" Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:49 PM | Comments (10) May 23, 2006When in asia, beware counterfeit cervezaA rather amusing example of the state of intellectual property in some Asian nations--not only is that DVD of MI 3 being sold by a street vendor probably pirated, but you must make sure you don't mistakenly purchase "Cerono" instead of Corona. Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:56 AM | Comments (4) May 22, 2006Sen. Bayh Dines with Hoosier BloggersToday Sen Evan Bayh (D-IN) met with a small group of Indiana bloggers, including ITA's Zach Wendling and yours truly, in an ongoing attempt by the Senator to reach out to alternative forms of media. Blogger Hoosierplew (written by Shawn Plew) was kind enough to post the audio recordings here. This isn't the first blogger meeting Bayh's had, and judging from my discussions with his staffers it won't be the last. Sen. Bayh's presidential aspirations are no secret. In 2005 alone he visited 22 states, with two visits to both Iowa and New Hampshire. His PAC also raised more money than any other potential Democratic candidate during the first six months of 2005, along with continued fundraising success in '06. He offered a refreshingly candid response about a possible run when he said, "It's no secret that I'm doing all of the things one needs to do" to run for president. Bayh's approach on the campaign trail is best summarized in a campaign bumper sticker he suggested to the Des Moines Register: "I kind of like 'Bayh-partisan.'" This theme of partisan reconcilitation was echoed numerous times during our lunch today and it will no doubt form the bedrock of his presidential campaign. But in an incredibly diverse party Bayh's soft, moderate approach requires a tough balancing act. Anyone attempting to win the party's nomination must first convince mainstream Democrats that he's a champion for their issues. That was no doubt a factor in his vote against Bush's tax cuts, against drilling in the Arctic, and for requiring gun-show background checks (in 2004, the National Rifle Association gave him a D-minus). He's even garnered an 88% rating from Planned Parenthood and a 50% rating from NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League). In addition to bill votes, Bayh has opposed numerous crucial Bush nominees, all of which should help his Democratic street cred. He voted against Condoleeza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State because "she has been a principle architect of policy errors that have tragically undermined our prospects for success" in Iraq. He also voted against confirming John Ashcroft as attorney general and John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Yet all of this "triangulation," as it has been called in the past, can leave a voter wondering about its sincerety. Whether or not you agree with John McCain's "maverick" positions, few seem to doubt he's genuine. Is Bayh equally sincere? That's why I wanted to dig deeper into Evan's "Bayh-partisanship" by asking about specific policy positions. But Bayh, saying he was wary of ideology, chose instead to speak generally about an "agenda for progress." Roughly 4 minutes into answering the question he did vaguely list "jobs, health care, and national security" as possible issues in '08, but there were no specifics and no concrete proposals. Presidential contenders almost always hold off from too many specifics until the months leading up to the election, but you still have an idea of what's important to them, and the values they'll apply to a given issue. With Bayh the only ideology appears to be a lack of ideology. That may help a him win votes in a red state, but it doesn't instill the type of passion and energy that wins national campaigns. In my mind this is Bayh's biggest hurdle, and indeed the challenge facing the national Democratic party. Americans are disillusioned with Bush's leadership, but unsure about their alternative. That attitude will get Democrats a few more House seats and perhaps even a president in '08. But it won't inspire a lasting movement. That is Bayh's challenge. Others covering the event: Advance Indiana (a general post and his analysis regarding the FMA), Shakesspeare's Sister, Torpor Indy, Bilerco. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:38 PM | Comments (10) May 21, 2006Eight Simple RulesBill Simmons of ESPN provided us with the eight responsibilities of a good baseball fan in a recent mailbag: A solid list. I would modify #4 so that it's ok to wear a jersey with your name if there is or had once been a player on the team with the same last name ("David Pujols" -- I like that). Otherwise, you're just a tool. I'd also add rule 9: if you catch a foul ball, give it to the nearest kid under 12. This looks good to the lady fans. Any other additions? Posted by David Darlington at 10:23 PM | Comments (3) May 20, 2006Legal EaglesWhy is the current immigration "crisis" so different from all previous influxes? There are many answers to this, not all of them wrong, but the most popular seems to be that previous immigrants, including our ancestors, came here legally. Changing the law now to accommodate our current population of law-breakers is problematic for two reasons. First, it strikes one as unfair to those legal immigrants who followed the rules. Second, it undermines respect for the rule of law. Both of these problems rely on the assumptions that the current immigration laws are just and appropriate, which I won't concede. Indeed, I think most conservatives wouldn't ordinarily concede that the government could be competent at micromanaging a significant part of the American labour force. As for the first problem, legal immigrants simply belong to that ever-growing class of people who've been made to jump through troublesome government hoops in pursuit of a better life. But their past harassment is no argument for continuing with flawed policies. Writing in the March 27, 2006 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru tackles the second problem: The best argument for considering illegal immigration a distinct problem [from legal immigration] is that it undermines respect for the law. But this harm is pretty abstract. It drives popular anxiety about illegal immigration only in the sense that illegal immigration is a symbol of a larger immigration policy that cannot command respect. It points to our political elites' failure to take seriously the responsibility to determine how many people, and which people, we will let in -- and that is something that people are capable of getting plenty mad about.The anti-immigrant camp often uses the legality argument as if it ends the discussion, and I think that's a rather shallow tactic. Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:34 AM | Comments (31) The Discourse AbidesWhen I saw that Ramesh Ponnuru was going to be on The Daily Show last week, I was pretty excited. Ponnuru is an excellent writer and one of the few reasons I regret letting my National Review subscription lapse. Sadly, his interview with John Stewart illustrated two things:
Drum is on to something when he suggests that Ponnuru really set himself up for this by writing a book called The Party of Death. The title alone dispelled my initial buzz when I learned that Ponnuru was coming out with a book. What's more, it immediately brought to mind something he wrote a couple of years ago: The Economist's "Lexington" column snipes at National Review this week, describing NR as a magazine from which a Republican will learn only that "abortion is a bad thing yet again." There is a lot that could be said about that comment, but I think the key thing to say to Adrian Wooldridge, the Economist's Washington editor, is this: I'm sorry my review of your book hurt your feelings, and I promise to write a rave of your next one if it's any good.I'd now like to know what else Ponnuru had in mind that could be said about a statement he's now confirmed in Regnery form. Posted by Zach Wendling at 10:37 AM | Comments (1) May 18, 2006'Cultural racism' in SeattleRadley Balko tips us off to the Seattle school system's definition of "cultural racism" that it has adopted as part of its diversity program: Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as "other", different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.(Emphasis added). The irony that diversity opposes "individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" appears to have been lost on the school board. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:10 AM | Comments (21) On the Border, or how to create a perpetual bureaucracySupposing the presence of the National Guard is successful in reducing the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico (mindful of Zach's post from yesterday, of course), will it ever be politically permissible for the Guardsmen to stand down? Say a future president wants to return the National Guard to a more traditional role. Does he or she not risk the wrath of the Tancredoite Right for making our borders "unsafe once more?" To me, the issue of a militarized border has the some dangerous calculus: if successful, the means might become self-justifying. Update: The Terminator is asking the right questions. Posted by David Darlington at 12:04 AM | Comments (2) May 17, 2006At Least One PointSadly, this inspiration is too late to help any of our readers with their final examinations. Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:24 PM | Comments (1) A Fence To Keep People InI don't suppose it is entirely insightful to note that the increased militarization of our borders is likely to increase illegal immigration, at least in the short term. According to the LA Times: Studies show that because it is harder to crisscross the border, illegal immigrants who intended to be in the U.S. for limited stretches may increasingly be choosing to bring their families with them -- and settle permanently....Mexican government surveys show that 20% of illegal Mexican immigrants returned home after six months in 1992, compared with 7% in 2000. "The net effect of the militarization of the border since 1993 has been to transform a circular movement of male workers to a settled population of families," said Douglas S. Massey, a Princeton University sociologist who has long studied the phenomenon. "Once they're here, they hunker down to stay longer." Massey and other analysts argue that if Congress tightens border security again, more illegal immigrants will put down roots in the U.S.Via Jesse Walker at Hit & Run, who ponders whether this is, "just a really crafty way to encourage assimilation." Significant push factors may be at play, too, which InstaPundit notes the leftist Presidential candidate is trying to capitalize on, "If Mexico goes communist, Bush won't have to do anything: they'll build a wall themselves!" Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:59 PM | Comments (0) Poll: Da Vinci Code alters readers' beliefsMuch discussion has taken place over the last year about the novel (and upcoming movie) The Da Vinci Code, and many Christian leaders have expressed concern that, despite the fact that it is a work of fiction, the novel has the potential to undermine people's faith. (See previous ITA discussions here and here.) A newly-released survey by leading British pollster Opinion Research Business shows that sixty percent of Britons who have read the novel believe that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, compared to thirty percent of Britons who have not read it. Seventeen percent of readers believe the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei has ordered or carried out a murder, compared to four percent of those who never read the novel. These are surprising and, frankly, disturbing results. It is important to stress that the way in which the poll questions were asked could make a huge difference in the results. It's not completely clear to me from media reports whether poll respondents are convinced Jesus did father a child, or whether they merely think it is plausible. Either way, this underscores the challenge to the church posed by The Da Vinci Code, and the need for leaders and laity to proclaim the truth about Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Posted by Eric Seymour at 11:34 AM | Comments (6) May 16, 2006Christian Cheat SheetThis writer notes that Christianity, as a 2000-year-old religion, can be extremely confusing to secularists, which includes some of our readers. In order to help them find their way, he provides an hilarious "cheat sheet" which explains some of the basic tenets and concepts in Christianity. For example, did you know that . . . Catholics are the New York Yankees of Christianity. They are the biggest and wealthiest team, and their owner is intensely controversial (this makes St. Francis of Assisi the Derek Jeter of Catholicism: discuss) . . . Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible, eat meat, or refrain from worshipping statues.As Jane Galt says, read the whole thing. Posted by Zach Wendling at 06:58 AM | Comments (9) May 13, 2006Insights into Law SchoolTomorrow I graduate from law school and I think that gives me a good reason to link to a series of hilarious posts by Barely Legal: The Blog. I've linked to one of these before but I think it's worth listing the entire set. Bad Reasons for Attending Law School People You Meet in Law School Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:02 AM | Comments (13) IU Trustee ElectionsThe Indiana University trustee elections are approaching and since a substantial number of IU alumni read ITA I thought it would be worth mentioning Steve Sanders, a candidate for the position, who has been endorsed by a number of people I respect. Click below for a message from Steve and ways to find out more about him. Our University is confronting its greatest time of transition, challenge, and opportunity in more than a half-century. The quality of its leadership will determine whether IU remains the great university we have known and supported. Each year all alumni have the opportunity to elect an IU trustee. Ballots are in the mail. I ask for your vote, and for your help in spreading the word to every other IU person you know. For 16 years, I worked with some of IU's most senior and respected administrators. I have also taught in its classrooms, given countless hours to student groups, and built relationships with literally hundreds of deans, faculty, staff, and alumni. I understand IU's academic and athletic excellence, the competition we face, and our University's needs for access, accountability, and diversity. I know the work of its professors, its rich student culture, the distinctive missions of its eight campuses, its role in the state economy and global markets, and its unique history and traditions. Now working in a career outside the University, I offer the independence, perspective, and judgment a responsible trustee must have. I'm proud that 6 former IU trustees have endorsed my candidacy - an unprecedented step which indicates how important they believe this election to be. Please learn more at iutrustee2006.com. And please don't hesitate to contact me with your suggestions and questions. Thank you for helping me serve IU with the knowledge, commitment, and high standards its alumni expect. Steve Sanders Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) May 12, 2006Tax Cut ReportingAs Josh mentions below, tax cuts have been in the news. Last night I happened to catch a segment on ABC World News Tonight which featured some rather..."creative" reporting. A graphic was displayed which contained the following data:
I immediately noticed what was missing. What about that $47,000 to $82,000 bracket? According to the article on the ABC news web site, taxpayers in that group save $115. Granted, that's no windfall, but it's no chump change, either. Why did they leave out the middle-income bracket in the TV segment? Perhaps to pad their "the rich get a lot, the non-rich get nothing" argument? (Note: the table is my best attempt to recreate from memory using the data from the ABC news web site. The $47,000 to $82,000 line was definitely missing.) The segment ended with correspondent Betsy Stark smugly wondering out loud if tax cuts that were "aimed more squarely at the middle class" would stimulate the economy even more. What her report doesn't mention, however, is that 41 percent of the U.S. population is completely exempt from federal income tax under the Bush tax cuts. It's hard to cut taxes on people who aren't paying any! Meanwhile, on the subject of taxes, Jane Galt linked to an interesting post this week by Greg Mankiw which demonstrates how a tax cut can be viewed as either progressive or regressive, depending on who is looking at it. Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:27 PM | Comments (13) May 11, 2006NSA WiretappingLike most small government conservatives, today's top story of NSA wiretapping concerns me. Its Constitutionality is questionable and its necessity unclear. But I remain confused as to why it is suddenly a top story when, as Matt Drudge notes, the NSA's program has been known and reported for months. For instance, this NY Times article from Dec. 23, 2005 exposes the intrusive policies. What has changed since then to suddenly make this front page news? Perhaps recent investigations have uncovered previously unknown details, but I cannot find them. Update: Longtime reader and friend Foltz argues the difference is that now there's "No warrants, no specific targets. They are looking for patterns or oddities to known patterns." But this is what the December 2005 NYT article stated: A former technology manager at a major telecommunications company said that since the Sept. 11 attacks, the leading companies in the industry have been storing information on calling patterns and giving it to the federal government to aid in tracking possible terrorists.That's precisely the same thing that's being reported today. USA Today's now-famous article appears to shed no new light on an old, albeit disturbing, story. The only new information appears to be the specific companies involved. SF Gate has more on the common practice of data mining by private companies. Reader "wahoofive" suggests the news is that previously only calls going outside the country (or vice versa) were monitored. Here's another snippet from a Kansas newspaper in December 2005: Bush has confirmed that he approved allowing the National Security Agency to monitor Americans without seeking warrants from a secret federal court that oversees the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.And Slate notes in early January 2006 what appeared to be generally known: "The program President Bush authorized reportedly allows the NSA to mine huge sets of domestic data for suspicious patterns, regardless of whether the source of the data is an American citizen or resident." This program is disturbing and deserves massive amounts of scrutiny. But I question the media frenzy that is suddenly brewing when the problem has been known for months. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:34 PM | Comments (28) Record Tax RevenuesThe Treasury Department announced Wednesday, "A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month." If this comes as a surprise to you, it could be because none of the major networks chose to report it. Indeed, all three major networks - NBC, CBS, and ABC - ran lengthy and extensive pieces on proposed extensions of tax cuts and their alleged favoritism to the rich in their evening news programs. But none of the stories bothered to mention the records tax receipts that recent cuts brought. In fact, many reporters attempted to paint the opposite picture. This morning ABC's Kate Snow mocked the cuts by holding up a $20 bill in the faces of "normal" Americans to get their response about the tax cut they would be receiving under a Republican plan. She added that an extension of the tax cuts "would cost the federal government $70 billion." Of course tax cuts don't "cost" the government anything because it's not the government's to lose. Moreover, Snow failed to note the Laffer Curve hypothesis that in many situations tax cuts actually boost revenues. That may very well be what happened in 2006. "In its monthly accounting of the government's books, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that revenue for the month totaled $315.1 billion as Americans filed their tax returns by the April deadline. The gusher of tax revenue pushed total receipts up by 13.4 percent from April 2005." Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 10:12 PM | Comments (13) That pesky 1st AmendmentPresidents swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." On April 28, on Don Imus' radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:(Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds) Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 06:30 PM | Comments (2) May 10, 2006Fantastic VoyageHere's a shout-out to Steve Vaught, the once 410-pound man who just completed a walk across the United States. Vaught said it wasn't about losing weight, but about completing a personal journey. During his trip, he slept in tents and motels, and went through 15 pairs of shoes, 30 pairs of socks, and six backpacks. The trip covered over 3,000 miles. His web site is here. Posted by David Darlington at 08:51 PM | Comments (4) May 09, 2006Back to NormalIf the government doesn't turn a simple memorial into a $1 billion boondoggle, the terrorists will have won. Posted by David Darlington at 12:07 AM | Comments (5) May 06, 2006Indiana University's Backward BudgetAs I've written before, I believe that the faculty is the most significant investment a university can make, and that a properly-ordered budget would place them as the highest priority. Now comes news that IU is dealing with their budget shortfall by losing 47 positions to attrition and layoffs. I suppose knowing which positions would be useful for further evaluating this policy, but the other components, i.e., raises consistent with inflation and bonuses for top faculty, could only be described as "acceptable." The overall impression, however, cannot do anything to help our flagging academic reputation. The news about losing 47 faculty positions comes on the heels of an announcement yesterday that the university will not go through with a plan close the African American Cultural Center Library to save money. Lest I give the impression that I think libraries are not good academic investments, I should point out that black students' protest seemed to be inspired by something a bit more self-righteous than academic necessity: "Closing our library -- the only black intellectual space on this decadent campus -- is a symbolic attack on our people," the letter read.I would point out that lobbying to keep an expensive luxury is itself self-indulgent, but as a non-African American, I suppose I was part of that decadent culture from which so many black students had to take refuge. So the score for this week: Boosting faculty prestige - 0, Supporting segregation - 1. As one more gripe about frivolous spending, I don't think this episode is truly all that remarkable, except that it illustrates a larger problem: IU's inability to make tough decisions. Would closing the library have made the University fiscally sound, or would those funds have gone directly to faculty pay otherwise? Probably not. But if IU is so hamstrung by special interests that minor policies are frustrated, how in the world are they to make the harder, but necessary, decisions to regain our footing? That would take strong leadership, something sadly lacking at IU. Posted by Zach Wendling at 01:33 PM | Comments (6) May 05, 2006Drug Companies and the CourtsSebastian Mallaby wrote an interesting column in Monday's Washington Post regarding the depths which liability lawsuits have reached and the need for tort reform--using lawsuits over Vioxx as his case in point. [Disclosure: I am employed by Merck.] It's required reading for those interested in tort reform, or seeking a good general overview of Vioxx litigation. (Another good resource is PointOfLaw.com.) Here's a key quote: Did those numbers sink in properly? The midpoint of [the estimates of Merck's Vioxx liability] -- $30 billion -- is six times more than the federal government spends annually on cancer research. Or, to put it another way, $30 billion is about five times Merck's annual earnings, meaning that one of the world's top pharmaceutical research establishments is fighting for survival. At a time when Americans fret over relative decline in science and business, it's insane to sink a flagship scientific company in order to line the pockets of unscrupulous lawyers. Meanwhile, Derek Lowe reports that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that patients have a due process right to access experimental drugs which have passed Phase I clinical trials, that is, drugs which have been shown to have no harmful acute side effects (long-term effects are often discovered in later trials or even--rarely--after a drug is on the market, as was the case with Vioxx). This decision could have major effects in the pharmaceutical industry and medical community. Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:15 PM | Comments (16) Dual Income ReduxIn a story tangentially related to our dual income discussion last week, a recent survey has finally put a price tag on the amount of work mom (or dad, I say) would do if she/he stayed at home. It is impressive. Salary.com reports that a stay-at-home parent does the equivalent work of a job that pays $134,000 per year. Once you add up the teaching, the feeding, the chaufferring, the cleaning, the accounting, and all the other good stuff, that seems about right to me. (HT: Rod Dreher) Did I mention Mother's Day is coming up? Posted by David Darlington at 04:58 PM | Comments (0) 'I Like to Argue'When you ask someone why they're going to law school, that's inevitably a reason that some will offer. Barely Legal: The Blog explains why this is bad reason #10 to attend. (Hit tip to a friend.) Great find. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 04:36 PM | Comments (3) Marriage and the StateIn preparing for my state constitutional law exam I came across a quotation from a federal case, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), which I think is interesting. The Court writes: Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the poverty rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.Although the opinion is well over a hundred years old, I think you'd find significant agreement with the sentiments behind it from most citizens today. But as a self-described 'Christian libertarian,' the quotation makes me squirm. I certainly agree with the Court's view that marriage is "the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution." But it is precisely for that reason that I feel the state should stay away from marriage. For an institution so important (and so rooted in religious faiths) it should not be left to the whims of a secular democracy. I think this is partially why beloved Christian author C.S. Lewis wrote the following: There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:00 AM | Comments (3) May 04, 2006National Day of Prayer 2006Today is the National Day of Prayer in America, as declared in a Presidential Proclamation, and celebrated in many churches and other locations across the country. At the White House's observance of the event, Christian singer Rebecca St. James sang a theme song entitled "America" (lyrics) which reflected the theme of the 2006 NDoP--"America, Honor God." President Bush made brief remarks, including the following: In my travels across the great land, a comment that I hear often from our fellow citizens is, "Mr. President, I pray for you and your family." It's amazing how many times a total stranger walks up and says that to me... Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:11 PM | Comments (14) Movie Review: United 93Recently I had the pleasure of seeing United 93, the film which details the tragic plane flights on September 11, 2001. No movie on this topic would be easy to make, but writer-director Paul Greengrass has managed to pull it off with all the right elements. There is no need to rehash the plot because we know it and its tragic ending. But United 93 succeeds in bringing this story to life in all its shocking detail while remaining true to history. According to various news reports Greengrass interviewed more than 100 family members and friends to make sure the conversations were all accurate. He even hired several civilian and military controllers on duty on September 11 to play themselves. Some will criticize the making of this film so soon after it happened, but Deroy Murdock makes the compelling argument that it's "Not Soon Enough." Either way, it is a thematic success and I recommend it to our readers. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:56 AM | Comments (0) Book Review: Christian Theologies of ScriptureIntegral questions about the Bible's meaning, authority, and interpretation are being discussed with renewed interest thanks in part to Dan Brown's best selling book The Da Vinci Code. Into this environment steps Justin S. Holcomb, editor of Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction. The book is a wonderful collection of easily digestible essays about what major thinkers in the Christian tradition have said about scripture from the earliest days of the faith to the present. Although Christian Theologies of Scripture is targeted primarily at Bible college and seminary professors, students, pastors, and those in the Christian community, I think it also provides the perfect primer on the faith for non-believers or those unfamiliar with its theology. Figures such as Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Balthasar are traced, as well as notable thinkers from the modern era. Beside these traditional theological pillars that make up the bulk of the book there also sits essays exploring feminism, the African American Christian tradition, and postmodernism. Ultimately the book does not attempt to persuade you, and it was not designed as such. Rather, Christian Theologies of Scripture is an objective examination and investigation into the history of Christian theology with one overarching question: What is the Bible? Of course there are many answers, and you're invited to explore them in this top notch introduction to Christian thought. Bonus: Blogger Glenn Lucke has posted an interesting interview with the editor, Justin Holcomb. Here's a teaser: Sure, our questions now are different from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Barth. But, the theologians from then have given us categories and a vocabulary to use, concepts to ponder, and conversations and thoughts about scripture that we should continue. We can stand on the shoulders of these giants in our contemporary conversations about scripture…but we need to know what they said. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:55 AM | Comments (0) ITA Message ForumJust in case you don't look at the layout of this page with a fine-toothed comb, I thought it would be worth mentioning that a graphic has been placed in the upper right hand corner of the page that, once clicked, takes you to the new ITA Message Forums. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:40 AM | Comments (0) May 03, 2006Letter From Houston: Gauging the Oil BoomLast weekend an article in the Houston Chronicle discussed the upcoming Offshore Technology Conference, held here every year. The convention, one of the oil industry's biggest, draws tens of thousands annually to see the latest in offshore drilling technology, and its attendance is more or less a barometer of where the country is with energy prices. The higher oil prices get, the more it becomes feasible to drill in the sea, and hence the more industry members flock to the conference. The big news this year is that the conference is expected to draw more people than it has for a long time. It drew around 50,000 last year, and this year will probably push towards 60,000. That is a lot for a conference that normally draws in the 20-30 thousand range. Already, giant air-conditioned tents have been set up outside the convention center to hold extra capacity. But it is not the most people the conference has ever drawn. To find a higher number, you would have to go back 25 years... back to the oil crisis of 1981. That year the conference drew 108,000. Its staggering size forced organizers to open up the Astrodome, and excess exhibits covered the stadium floor. OPEC had boycotted the United States, and oil had skyrocketed to around $60 a barrel - which, adjusted for inflation, translates to over $100 a barrel today. There were the proverbial "lines at the pumps." The country had never seen anything like it, and it still hasn't since. This was the great "oil boom," and while the rest of America suffered, the city of Houston, whose economy at the time was 80% oil-related, was on an unprecedented joyride. In 1980 it became the first U.S. city ever to issue more than $1 billion in building permits; an entire skyline sprung up overnight. One gas pipeline company saw its stock price hit $64, and to celebrate, it built a 64-story office tower, right in the middle of the suburbs (why commute all the way to downtown?). It is still the world's tallest suburban skyscraper. But every boom is followed by a bust, and Houston's came that year when OPEC flooded the market, sending oil prices plummeting to $10 a barrel. In the course of five years some 250,000 workers were laid off - an entire seventh of the city's workforce. People left town so fast that tent cities formed next to freeways on the city's outskirts. Banks failed when companies couldn't repay loans, and entire subdivisions built on speculation stood empty. It is the closest return any American city has made to the Great Depression. Today high oil prices are back: Is the city booming again? Well, there are no new skyscrapers going up. There are no helicopters in the sky taking CEOs to lunch. There is no talk, like there was, of Houston surpassing Chicago in population. There are record oil profits, but the companies seem to be playing it safe as they reinvest. Standing in this town, you are more likely to hear complaint that gas prices are too high than excitement over the profits being reaped. If there's a lesson to be drawn from this, it's that the country really isn't in any kind of oil emergency. In 1981, oil expenses accounted for 5.25% of the average American's personal budget; today, with Americans driving much further than they did then, the number is only 3.4%. Although things could certainly change for the worse soon, few people so far have had to cut back on trips, carpool, or take the bus. The nation's oil capital has yet to feel any real joy, which means that the rest of the country has yet to feel any real pain. Posted by Michael Mattair at 01:42 AM | Comments (3) May 01, 2006The Colbert ReportStephen Colbert's roast at the White House Correspondents Dinner has received a number of mixed reviews. Editor & Publisher reports that the President didn't seem too amused, and numerous other outlets reported the same. Thanks to YouTube you can watch his speech yourself. Here's part 1, part 2, and part 3. Update: Jon Stewart defends the speech, saying "It was balls-alicious." Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 11:27 PM | Comments (12) MiscellaneousAn article on CNN.com provides a fairly succinct summary of the controversy over The Da Vinci Code. More and more, I am beginning to view Dan Brown as something of a charlatan who deliberately blurred the line between fact and fiction in order to sell books. Did you like the Anheuser-Busch ad during the 2005 Super Bowl in which a group of American soldiers are applauded as they walk down an airport concourse? Well, here is a real-life example of something like that happening back in October 2003. Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:41 PM | Comments (11) Two GiantsTwo giants of the 20th century passed away last week. The more well known of the two was John Kenneth Galbraith, economic advisor to presidents from FDR to LBJ. An icon and popularizer of Keynesian economics and liberal politics, Galbraith was one of the few two-time winners of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, receiving the award in 1946 from Harry Truman and again in 2000 from Bill Clinton. Less known but no less influential was urban critic Jane Jacobs, who passed away last Tuesday, April 25. Jacobs's The Death and Life of Great American Cities was one of the first challenges to the urban planning/urban "renewal" programs of the 1950s and 1960s. Jacobs argued that you can't just blow up old buildings, build new ones from scratch, and expect to create desirable places to live (just ask anyone living in public housing). Healthy cities are dynamic, spontaneous, and humane, she said. Jacobs put her ideas into action by challenging master builder Robert Moses and defeating his plans for building an expressway through downtown Manhattan. Posted by David Darlington at 05:07 PM | Comments (6) |
|||||||||||
|
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------
|