See You on Monday
I will not likely be posting again until Monday. I did stay up late Thursday night (Friday morning) posting just to be sure you would all have something to read. Please enjoy.
If you are hoping for a comment on the economic data, here it is: Hooray! I haven't time to read Paul Krugman yet, but just the title convinces me he is really out in left field. I am just appalled that rather than admit that the numbers look good and that he is wrong, he looks for the only dismal issue in the nation--California--and tries to extrapolate some greater meaning. I will read the article and comment in detail when I return.
Aug 1, 2003
The Gay Marriage Issue
One argument often cited against gay marriage is the slippery slope. Most recently, the slope towards polygamy and polyamory. In and of itself I think that a slippery slope argument is not strong enough to win a debate--any debate. In fact, if I was an opponent of a slippery sloper I would simply offer a compromise--agree to let X go and agree to ban Y. Thus the slope disappears. The gay movement may want to consider doing just that.
So, I feel we need a more compelling argument.
The gay movement also has a weak argument. They keep trying to argue that they are denied a "right". When it comes right down to it the right that they are concerned about is the right to express love in any way they feel. Besides the point that there is an irony to the sexual revolution now wanting to embrace the actual institution it once rejected, serious people should wonder why this is a right and why the gay movement thinks that this is the ultimate way to express love. To be fair this is not the only argument for gay marriage, but it is the only one that can not be legislated away. All other arguments are for economic benefits that simply require an update to laws to allow for any two persons regardless of sex of the parties to enter into mutual agreements for the receipt of benefits such as Social Security.
In making the argument for love, the gay marriage movement actually sets good terms for debate. What they raise is the question of the nature of marriage. What is marriage for? Is it for love? Is there no other reason for marriage? Tell the Indian programmer who just returned to India for his arranged marriage to a woman chosen out of a newspaper that marriage is for love. Tell the Filipino mail order bride that marriage is for love. I will admit that in the West love has become an important condition for marriage. Our culture glorifies love in marriage. We also glorify some concept of destiny. We embrace the fairy tale of Cinderella and more recently The Princess Bride. What is the line? "Marriage. Marriage is what brings us together--today. Marriage--that blessed arrangement. That dream -- within a dream." That dream--within a dream. Our culture idolizes the entire process. Who can blame the gay person for feeling that life has excluded them?
Why the fairy tale about marriage? Why any fairy tale? Let's try another fairy tale to make my point. How about the most discussed (according to this website): Little Red Riding Hood. If you read through the entire piece (or at least scan as I did), you will find this quote: "Other interpretations range from a focus on the idea that it is a simple cautionary tale, to a plethora of psychoanalytically based interpretations which generally radiate from a sexual / initiation source..." (emphasis mine). I am willing to discard all the gobbledy gook of all the PhDs who need to justify their degrees in literature by defining some new meaning in the red cape and focus on the cautionary tale. Simply put it was meant to scare the bejesus out of little kids in order to keep them from getting too close to wolves and asking dumb questions about their ears and eyes. Parents needed to keep their kids safe.
What does this have to do with marriage? The cultural fairy tales about marriage as the romantic end all of life are there to get us to marry. If the tales really told about how the couple argued on their honeymoon, or how child birth was so painful, or any number of things about marriage that are arduous do you think anyone would get married? If they didn't get married what would their fate be? Why do you think Cinderella's wicked step sisters couldn't get married? They are in the story to make the point that only selfish and mean girls can't get married so be nice.
Why did culture evolve such fairy tales? One might conclude that marriage had other benefits. If the fairy tale made it easier to get the young couple to agree to marriage then all the better. Just as the benefits of keeping children away from wolves justified scaring children, the benfits of marriage, protection from economic and social instability, justified making marriage seem romantic.
Does this still apply today? The welfare state has come pretty close to making it seem as if it does not. But I believe that it still does. Why? Because it still protects children. Ultimately there is no kind of homosexual sex that might result in child birth. Try as they may, there will be no accidental birth. However, in a heterosexual relationship this is possible for all except presidential interns. The ideal is marriage in order to protect children--not for love. Gay people need to understand this and embrace it. They need marriage to work in the traditional way just like I do. They need children to be born in to stable two parent families rather than grow up in single parent homes as wards of the welfare state. As for expressing love, they can do that in their rooms and in contracts and in the way they live.
The real slippery slope has already been slid down--it is the slope of forgetting why culture has certain traditions. It is in forgetting why these traditions are of value to all. Forget polygamy and polyamory and forget expressions of love. Instead focus on the real tradition and ask if the value that each tradition provides for our collective society is worth maintaining. In the case of marriage, I believe that it is.
One argument often cited against gay marriage is the slippery slope. Most recently, the slope towards polygamy and polyamory. In and of itself I think that a slippery slope argument is not strong enough to win a debate--any debate. In fact, if I was an opponent of a slippery sloper I would simply offer a compromise--agree to let X go and agree to ban Y. Thus the slope disappears. The gay movement may want to consider doing just that.
So, I feel we need a more compelling argument.
The gay movement also has a weak argument. They keep trying to argue that they are denied a "right". When it comes right down to it the right that they are concerned about is the right to express love in any way they feel. Besides the point that there is an irony to the sexual revolution now wanting to embrace the actual institution it once rejected, serious people should wonder why this is a right and why the gay movement thinks that this is the ultimate way to express love. To be fair this is not the only argument for gay marriage, but it is the only one that can not be legislated away. All other arguments are for economic benefits that simply require an update to laws to allow for any two persons regardless of sex of the parties to enter into mutual agreements for the receipt of benefits such as Social Security.
In making the argument for love, the gay marriage movement actually sets good terms for debate. What they raise is the question of the nature of marriage. What is marriage for? Is it for love? Is there no other reason for marriage? Tell the Indian programmer who just returned to India for his arranged marriage to a woman chosen out of a newspaper that marriage is for love. Tell the Filipino mail order bride that marriage is for love. I will admit that in the West love has become an important condition for marriage. Our culture glorifies love in marriage. We also glorify some concept of destiny. We embrace the fairy tale of Cinderella and more recently The Princess Bride. What is the line? "Marriage. Marriage is what brings us together--today. Marriage--that blessed arrangement. That dream -- within a dream." That dream--within a dream. Our culture idolizes the entire process. Who can blame the gay person for feeling that life has excluded them?
Why the fairy tale about marriage? Why any fairy tale? Let's try another fairy tale to make my point. How about the most discussed (according to this website): Little Red Riding Hood. If you read through the entire piece (or at least scan as I did), you will find this quote: "Other interpretations range from a focus on the idea that it is a simple cautionary tale, to a plethora of psychoanalytically based interpretations which generally radiate from a sexual / initiation source..." (emphasis mine). I am willing to discard all the gobbledy gook of all the PhDs who need to justify their degrees in literature by defining some new meaning in the red cape and focus on the cautionary tale. Simply put it was meant to scare the bejesus out of little kids in order to keep them from getting too close to wolves and asking dumb questions about their ears and eyes. Parents needed to keep their kids safe.
What does this have to do with marriage? The cultural fairy tales about marriage as the romantic end all of life are there to get us to marry. If the tales really told about how the couple argued on their honeymoon, or how child birth was so painful, or any number of things about marriage that are arduous do you think anyone would get married? If they didn't get married what would their fate be? Why do you think Cinderella's wicked step sisters couldn't get married? They are in the story to make the point that only selfish and mean girls can't get married so be nice.
Why did culture evolve such fairy tales? One might conclude that marriage had other benefits. If the fairy tale made it easier to get the young couple to agree to marriage then all the better. Just as the benefits of keeping children away from wolves justified scaring children, the benfits of marriage, protection from economic and social instability, justified making marriage seem romantic.
Does this still apply today? The welfare state has come pretty close to making it seem as if it does not. But I believe that it still does. Why? Because it still protects children. Ultimately there is no kind of homosexual sex that might result in child birth. Try as they may, there will be no accidental birth. However, in a heterosexual relationship this is possible for all except presidential interns. The ideal is marriage in order to protect children--not for love. Gay people need to understand this and embrace it. They need marriage to work in the traditional way just like I do. They need children to be born in to stable two parent families rather than grow up in single parent homes as wards of the welfare state. As for expressing love, they can do that in their rooms and in contracts and in the way they live.
The real slippery slope has already been slid down--it is the slope of forgetting why culture has certain traditions. It is in forgetting why these traditions are of value to all. Forget polygamy and polyamory and forget expressions of love. Instead focus on the real tradition and ask if the value that each tradition provides for our collective society is worth maintaining. In the case of marriage, I believe that it is.
Oil Out of Crap
Thanks to Nick Schulz for this and this post on The NRO Corner today. Just to sum it up for you. There is an article in Discover magazine that reports on a company that has developed a process whereby they can convert anything containing Carbon into Oil while producing mineral and water as by-products. Nick, who edits a technology magazine, asks if any experienced scientists can vouch for the legitimacy of this process.
He has received some comments from engineers on the article. Some sceptical, and one very positive.
I offered Nick an alternative point of view. The economic one.
You see, I am convinced that most science is like computer programming which I know a little about. The question is not if something is possible, but rather how long it will take and at what expense--more specifically, is it worth it. Let's use a simple example. An electric car is possible, but each car costs SO much money that it is not economically feasible. What is obvious to me from the article is that the interviewer did not ask the hard detail questions on costs. Sure, I realize that he did have some lines about costs, but let's look at them. First quote:
"We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process.
Please note the future tense there. Right after the reporter got done listing the $50 million invested by individuals and government just to do the research. Further in the article you will read that the first plant cost $20 million to build. Next quote:
It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil [a day]
600 barrels of oil which will sell on today's market for $30 a barrel for a total of $18,000 a day. At that rate it will take him three years just to cover the cost of building the facility. Not too bad so far. Final quote:
And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
That is where he exposes himself. You see the reporter should have asked why the costs will go down. Is that because turkey guts will get cheaper, or he will have written off the fixed costs, or is it because he is assuming that more people will adopt the technology and he will be able to spread the costs over multiple locations? I think he is only talking about the variable costs of turkey guts and keeping the lights at the factory on. He is not including the initial investments, or the reality of how much more his oil cost in terms of the opportunity cost of the natural gas he claims to pump back into the system. The real give away that they might be using rosy estimates was that the "authority" on how good an investment this is was the venture capitalist--you don't think he has an agenda, now do you?
I love technology. I am very excited about things like this. I really believe that scientists will make drilling for oil a non-issue long before it runs out. But I am not so excited that I think it will happen tomorrow. I would guess that this guy has really discovered a spectacular process, but I would also guess that it is more costly than he lets on. All new technology tends to be. Will it get cheaper? You bet it will, but can the idea last long enough for the idea to get cheaper? How long will it take to get cheaper? Many great ideas fail for reasons unrelated to the greatness of the idea, let's hope that this is not true of turning turkey guts into oil.
Thanks to Nick Schulz for this and this post on The NRO Corner today. Just to sum it up for you. There is an article in Discover magazine that reports on a company that has developed a process whereby they can convert anything containing Carbon into Oil while producing mineral and water as by-products. Nick, who edits a technology magazine, asks if any experienced scientists can vouch for the legitimacy of this process.
He has received some comments from engineers on the article. Some sceptical, and one very positive.
I offered Nick an alternative point of view. The economic one.
You see, I am convinced that most science is like computer programming which I know a little about. The question is not if something is possible, but rather how long it will take and at what expense--more specifically, is it worth it. Let's use a simple example. An electric car is possible, but each car costs SO much money that it is not economically feasible. What is obvious to me from the article is that the interviewer did not ask the hard detail questions on costs. Sure, I realize that he did have some lines about costs, but let's look at them. First quote:
"We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process.
Please note the future tense there. Right after the reporter got done listing the $50 million invested by individuals and government just to do the research. Further in the article you will read that the first plant cost $20 million to build. Next quote:
It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil [a day]
600 barrels of oil which will sell on today's market for $30 a barrel for a total of $18,000 a day. At that rate it will take him three years just to cover the cost of building the facility. Not too bad so far. Final quote:
And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
That is where he exposes himself. You see the reporter should have asked why the costs will go down. Is that because turkey guts will get cheaper, or he will have written off the fixed costs, or is it because he is assuming that more people will adopt the technology and he will be able to spread the costs over multiple locations? I think he is only talking about the variable costs of turkey guts and keeping the lights at the factory on. He is not including the initial investments, or the reality of how much more his oil cost in terms of the opportunity cost of the natural gas he claims to pump back into the system. The real give away that they might be using rosy estimates was that the "authority" on how good an investment this is was the venture capitalist--you don't think he has an agenda, now do you?
I love technology. I am very excited about things like this. I really believe that scientists will make drilling for oil a non-issue long before it runs out. But I am not so excited that I think it will happen tomorrow. I would guess that this guy has really discovered a spectacular process, but I would also guess that it is more costly than he lets on. All new technology tends to be. Will it get cheaper? You bet it will, but can the idea last long enough for the idea to get cheaper? How long will it take to get cheaper? Many great ideas fail for reasons unrelated to the greatness of the idea, let's hope that this is not true of turning turkey guts into oil.
Jul 31, 2003
Bush Press Conference
President Bush held a press conference yesterday at a time of day when few people could watch. Just for fun go to the White House home page and see if you can find any reference to the press conference. What is wrong with this White House? Okay, I know that President Bush is not the best public speaker, but he is worse quoted than he is live. The few clips I have seen were great. He showed emotion and a sense of humor. He clearly is comfortable with reporters and willing to joke with them from reading the transcript. I think these are the things that the American people need to see live in prime time rather than reading the quotes that make him sound dumb. Karl Rove set the man free!
Speaking of which there were some really great comments in the press conference. Some reality expressed about how long it will take to establish democracy in Iraq, more directness about the '16 words', and a comment about gay marriage.
What I want to know is whether people are going to eat crow now about the '16 words'. After all, a lot of people have been going on and on about the President not being willing to take personal responsibility. I still contend that he has done that all along. Maybe they will be happy that he did it live at a press conference. I doubt it! The strategy is to weaken Bush through a thousand pinpricks. And, if Karl Rove is listening, this is the reason that Bush needs to be live in prime time. Because when people hear Bush speak they see the simple cowboy and they like it.
What I really am interested in is his comment about Gay Marriage. No, I am not going to take credit for this one. But I am happy to see him finally address the question in a way that indicates that he is taking it seriously. I am not sure that some of the headlines were appropriate. But he did imply that legal proposals are on the way. I would like to see what he has in mind. Regular readers will recognize that I have strong feelings on this issue. I am not in favor of gay marriage. I am, however, nervous that Bush will continue his track record of overdoing the government role in any solution.
Fundamentally there is a cultural debate that needs to be held, which is bigger than just gay marriage. The initial question of that debate is: 'Do Christian values have a place in our society?' President Bush obviously believes there is. I agree. The challenge is how best to do that without disturbing the rights of people to believe and worship however they choose. The real problem is that so much of western cultural tradition is rooted in Christianity. Why do you think American's feel this moral obligation to help poor war-torn countries like Liberia? Where does that come from? There is no self interest involved; yet there is a lot of compassion. Why do we value the life of an individual soldier? Why do we object to ideologies that imply that some are better than others are? Whether we like it or not many of these concepts are linked to or influenced by Christianity. If Christian values have a place then President Bush's complete statement is very appropriate and goes very well with what I have argued. The problem with gay marriage is that gay persons feel ostracized by people who look down on the gay lifestyle. Bush exhorted all Americans to be better Christians towards gay persons. And then he pointed out that being better Christians did not require accepting the legalization of gay marriage. Can you see that one with out the other would have been a contradiction? Can you see that you can't call on Christians to observe the higher ideals of Christianity while kicking the institution of marriage? Or stated the opposite way, we can't defend traditional marriage and at the same time be callous to the feelings of gay persons.
Because this and other issues are so important I return to my original point: put Bush on in prime time and let him be a bigger part of the debate on each and every issue that is important in this country.
President Bush held a press conference yesterday at a time of day when few people could watch. Just for fun go to the White House home page and see if you can find any reference to the press conference. What is wrong with this White House? Okay, I know that President Bush is not the best public speaker, but he is worse quoted than he is live. The few clips I have seen were great. He showed emotion and a sense of humor. He clearly is comfortable with reporters and willing to joke with them from reading the transcript. I think these are the things that the American people need to see live in prime time rather than reading the quotes that make him sound dumb. Karl Rove set the man free!
Speaking of which there were some really great comments in the press conference. Some reality expressed about how long it will take to establish democracy in Iraq, more directness about the '16 words', and a comment about gay marriage.
What I want to know is whether people are going to eat crow now about the '16 words'. After all, a lot of people have been going on and on about the President not being willing to take personal responsibility. I still contend that he has done that all along. Maybe they will be happy that he did it live at a press conference. I doubt it! The strategy is to weaken Bush through a thousand pinpricks. And, if Karl Rove is listening, this is the reason that Bush needs to be live in prime time. Because when people hear Bush speak they see the simple cowboy and they like it.
What I really am interested in is his comment about Gay Marriage. No, I am not going to take credit for this one. But I am happy to see him finally address the question in a way that indicates that he is taking it seriously. I am not sure that some of the headlines were appropriate. But he did imply that legal proposals are on the way. I would like to see what he has in mind. Regular readers will recognize that I have strong feelings on this issue. I am not in favor of gay marriage. I am, however, nervous that Bush will continue his track record of overdoing the government role in any solution.
Fundamentally there is a cultural debate that needs to be held, which is bigger than just gay marriage. The initial question of that debate is: 'Do Christian values have a place in our society?' President Bush obviously believes there is. I agree. The challenge is how best to do that without disturbing the rights of people to believe and worship however they choose. The real problem is that so much of western cultural tradition is rooted in Christianity. Why do you think American's feel this moral obligation to help poor war-torn countries like Liberia? Where does that come from? There is no self interest involved; yet there is a lot of compassion. Why do we value the life of an individual soldier? Why do we object to ideologies that imply that some are better than others are? Whether we like it or not many of these concepts are linked to or influenced by Christianity. If Christian values have a place then President Bush's complete statement is very appropriate and goes very well with what I have argued. The problem with gay marriage is that gay persons feel ostracized by people who look down on the gay lifestyle. Bush exhorted all Americans to be better Christians towards gay persons. And then he pointed out that being better Christians did not require accepting the legalization of gay marriage. Can you see that one with out the other would have been a contradiction? Can you see that you can't call on Christians to observe the higher ideals of Christianity while kicking the institution of marriage? Or stated the opposite way, we can't defend traditional marriage and at the same time be callous to the feelings of gay persons.
Because this and other issues are so important I return to my original point: put Bush on in prime time and let him be a bigger part of the debate on each and every issue that is important in this country.
Jul 30, 2003
What Is Bush Really Hiding? NOTHING!
That is the real question to ask about the blacked out section of the 9/11 report. Not some question about motives. I guess the President still has political capital on store with me because I don't believe he is just trying to cover and maintain some cool relationship with the Saudis. Furthermore, I think there is fair evidence that this adminsitration does not try to coddle unwilling or unneeded allies. Our success in Iraq makes the Saudis both unwilling and now unneeded.
What is really going on?
The first possible explanation is that this is just another example of what I will call 'intelligence caution'. I think spies are like any other technician in any other job where their word can mean the difference between trust and losing a job. For instance, in my line of work I am often asked if we can make some modification to a computer system so that users can do something special. The most important question I ask is 'who is the user?' This affects my answer. At a simplistic level the change the user requests can always be done, the real question is how LONG will the change take. If the user is someone who can get me fired then I prefer to sound optimistic but in my actual estimates I err on the side of caution. If it will likly take one day to make the change I hedge and ask for two days. If I am done early all the better.
What does this have to do with spies? I think they are in a similar position. They are always being asked to assess risks. If they underestimate the risks, as they did previous to 9/11, they will get burned if the worst case scenario comes to pass. However, if they over estimate risks, as some think they did with Iraq, at the worst we will eliminate a threat that was not as bad as thought, but nonetheless a threat. So when a report about all the details of 9/11 comes along then the spies and investigators ask themselves what are the risks of everyone knowing every thing that we know. In the worst case a bad guy gets spooked and runs or the Saudis are able to figure out who is the spy in the upper reaches of the royal family. Granted the bad guy may never read the report and the Saudi royals may be too dumb to figure it out, but why take the risk?
I want to know WHO blacked out the sections. Did the CIA? The FBI? The NSC? State? Or was it a White House political operative?
I am going out on a limb here, but I think it was some technician who wants to avoid risk.
What of the Saudi desire to see it released? The Saudis are honestly concerned about public image, but only when Washington cameras are focused on them. Once again I am going out on a limb here, but when all is said and done I think the Saudis want to know who in the royal family keeps telling Washington about all their dirty laundry. This is the second possible explanation for keeping the critical sections of the report blacked out.
It is clear to me that Bush irritates the Saudis. Why else would you have quotes about Bush Sr calling the Prince to tell him that Jr's heart is in the right place? Why else would the Prince storm away from a week at the ranch without holding a joint news conference? Bush Jr sees black and white, and if there is one thing I like about him it is that he is not afraid to identify it. There is no doubt in my mind that he is leaning on the Saudis and they don't like it.
So while I would love to read the report contents, I am actually satisfied that Bush is not giving the Saudis a pass on being bad, so I don't care. Now can the press and the Democrats move on to another story?
That is the real question to ask about the blacked out section of the 9/11 report. Not some question about motives. I guess the President still has political capital on store with me because I don't believe he is just trying to cover and maintain some cool relationship with the Saudis. Furthermore, I think there is fair evidence that this adminsitration does not try to coddle unwilling or unneeded allies. Our success in Iraq makes the Saudis both unwilling and now unneeded.
What is really going on?
The first possible explanation is that this is just another example of what I will call 'intelligence caution'. I think spies are like any other technician in any other job where their word can mean the difference between trust and losing a job. For instance, in my line of work I am often asked if we can make some modification to a computer system so that users can do something special. The most important question I ask is 'who is the user?' This affects my answer. At a simplistic level the change the user requests can always be done, the real question is how LONG will the change take. If the user is someone who can get me fired then I prefer to sound optimistic but in my actual estimates I err on the side of caution. If it will likly take one day to make the change I hedge and ask for two days. If I am done early all the better.
What does this have to do with spies? I think they are in a similar position. They are always being asked to assess risks. If they underestimate the risks, as they did previous to 9/11, they will get burned if the worst case scenario comes to pass. However, if they over estimate risks, as some think they did with Iraq, at the worst we will eliminate a threat that was not as bad as thought, but nonetheless a threat. So when a report about all the details of 9/11 comes along then the spies and investigators ask themselves what are the risks of everyone knowing every thing that we know. In the worst case a bad guy gets spooked and runs or the Saudis are able to figure out who is the spy in the upper reaches of the royal family. Granted the bad guy may never read the report and the Saudi royals may be too dumb to figure it out, but why take the risk?
I want to know WHO blacked out the sections. Did the CIA? The FBI? The NSC? State? Or was it a White House political operative?
I am going out on a limb here, but I think it was some technician who wants to avoid risk.
What of the Saudi desire to see it released? The Saudis are honestly concerned about public image, but only when Washington cameras are focused on them. Once again I am going out on a limb here, but when all is said and done I think the Saudis want to know who in the royal family keeps telling Washington about all their dirty laundry. This is the second possible explanation for keeping the critical sections of the report blacked out.
It is clear to me that Bush irritates the Saudis. Why else would you have quotes about Bush Sr calling the Prince to tell him that Jr's heart is in the right place? Why else would the Prince storm away from a week at the ranch without holding a joint news conference? Bush Jr sees black and white, and if there is one thing I like about him it is that he is not afraid to identify it. There is no doubt in my mind that he is leaning on the Saudis and they don't like it.
So while I would love to read the report contents, I am actually satisfied that Bush is not giving the Saudis a pass on being bad, so I don't care. Now can the press and the Democrats move on to another story?
Tax Cut
I just got my $800 tax rebate check! Besides now knowing I have at least two kids and the possible range of my income you can also be assured that I love tax cuts in any form.
At a theoretical level I don't really care who gets the tax cut. At the end of the day all I am interested in is the total size of the tax cut. There are two reasons for this. First of all the total size of the tax cut has a direct effect on the ability of politicians to justify the total amount of spending. Remember it is the spending that causes the deficit, not the tax cut. Secondly, the larger the total tax cut the greater the total effect on the total economy. And the real stimulation for me is that if the economy turns up companies start hiring and all kinds of nice things happen. With this type of logic it would be really no difference if we just gave Bill Gates the entire tax cut or we spread it around.
Granted at a personal level I really enjoying being a part of the tax cut. Furthermore, I feel it is my civic duty to spend a fair portion of the money thereby stimulating the economy. To that end my wife and I intend to go out for a nice sit down dinner and tip lavishly! I love getting some of it.
The reason to spread the tax cut around is to keep me voting for Bush. It is sold as fairness, but if it is the economy we are concerned about, then giving Bill Gates a check for $100,000,000 can be just as effective as giving 100,000 families a check for $1,000 not to mention much simpler to administer. This is the segway to the first Democratic lie about tax cuts. That is that tax cuts need to go to the people that need them the most. I don't dispute that poor people would really appreciate the break, while Bill Gates wouldn't miss the money if we in fact raised his taxes a little bit. The real problem is that it is hard to cut the taxes of a person who doesn't pay taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit for example effectively removes the poorest Americans from tax liability. The last time I qualified I actually made money from the credit! Therefore if I want to cut the total tax burden in the country by $1 billion then I am going to cut taxes even for the people who don't need it. If the real objective is to make poor people better off then forget tax cuts and write them a check--oops! I forgot I just explained how we already do that.
The other lie about tax cuts is that they cause deficits. When is a Democrat going to be honest and tell us what they really mean? Sure, they wouldn't get my vote, but they aren't going to get it anyway. What they mean is that without higher tax revenues, at some point, someone will have to cut spending. Democrats don't want to cut spending on precious programs and therefore they are against any tax cut.
Heres to happy sit down dinners all over America!
I just got my $800 tax rebate check! Besides now knowing I have at least two kids and the possible range of my income you can also be assured that I love tax cuts in any form.
At a theoretical level I don't really care who gets the tax cut. At the end of the day all I am interested in is the total size of the tax cut. There are two reasons for this. First of all the total size of the tax cut has a direct effect on the ability of politicians to justify the total amount of spending. Remember it is the spending that causes the deficit, not the tax cut. Secondly, the larger the total tax cut the greater the total effect on the total economy. And the real stimulation for me is that if the economy turns up companies start hiring and all kinds of nice things happen. With this type of logic it would be really no difference if we just gave Bill Gates the entire tax cut or we spread it around.
Granted at a personal level I really enjoying being a part of the tax cut. Furthermore, I feel it is my civic duty to spend a fair portion of the money thereby stimulating the economy. To that end my wife and I intend to go out for a nice sit down dinner and tip lavishly! I love getting some of it.
The reason to spread the tax cut around is to keep me voting for Bush. It is sold as fairness, but if it is the economy we are concerned about, then giving Bill Gates a check for $100,000,000 can be just as effective as giving 100,000 families a check for $1,000 not to mention much simpler to administer. This is the segway to the first Democratic lie about tax cuts. That is that tax cuts need to go to the people that need them the most. I don't dispute that poor people would really appreciate the break, while Bill Gates wouldn't miss the money if we in fact raised his taxes a little bit. The real problem is that it is hard to cut the taxes of a person who doesn't pay taxes. The Earned Income Tax Credit for example effectively removes the poorest Americans from tax liability. The last time I qualified I actually made money from the credit! Therefore if I want to cut the total tax burden in the country by $1 billion then I am going to cut taxes even for the people who don't need it. If the real objective is to make poor people better off then forget tax cuts and write them a check--oops! I forgot I just explained how we already do that.
The other lie about tax cuts is that they cause deficits. When is a Democrat going to be honest and tell us what they really mean? Sure, they wouldn't get my vote, but they aren't going to get it anyway. What they mean is that without higher tax revenues, at some point, someone will have to cut spending. Democrats don't want to cut spending on precious programs and therefore they are against any tax cut.
Heres to happy sit down dinners all over America!
Senate Judiciary Committee
Last night I watched C-Span. It was the July 23rd vote on referring William Pryor to the full Senate for a vote on his nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Setting aside the debate about Mr. Pryor, it was just fun to watch. Democrats and Republicans were at each other's throats. The Democrats tried to raise questions about Pryor's honesty to the committee and request more time to investigate. The Republicans countered that plenty of investigation had been done and nothing turned up. The Democrats tried to invoke Rule 4, which they felt allowed for a filibuster within the committee. Chairman Hatch declared that he had the sole authority to interpret the rule and declared that it could not be invoked in this case. The Republicans upheld his interpretation and then they voted on Pryor along party lines. Political high drama--good TV.
Last night I watched C-Span. It was the July 23rd vote on referring William Pryor to the full Senate for a vote on his nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Setting aside the debate about Mr. Pryor, it was just fun to watch. Democrats and Republicans were at each other's throats. The Democrats tried to raise questions about Pryor's honesty to the committee and request more time to investigate. The Republicans countered that plenty of investigation had been done and nothing turned up. The Democrats tried to invoke Rule 4, which they felt allowed for a filibuster within the committee. Chairman Hatch declared that he had the sole authority to interpret the rule and declared that it could not be invoked in this case. The Republicans upheld his interpretation and then they voted on Pryor along party lines. Political high drama--good TV.
Jul 29, 2003
Quick Roundup
I am on a business trip and so instead of posting this morning, I was on an airplane. Rather than provide one of my normal lengthy posts I thought I would share my thoughts about the things I read in the newpapers while flying--as well as some general in flight observations. I read both the Wall St Journal and USA Today. I know that there is a big difference in the prestige and quality of these papers, but I think that they provide some different things which I value.
Airport Screeners
But before the papers. I went through airport security in a midsize airport. The lady behind me complained about the length of the security line. I don't get it, the line only took 5 minutes. Forget all the things that can be said about airport screening good or bad and recognize that at a minimum the screeners try their best to make it a quick process. I will say that I have observed that airport design does limit the ability of screeners to affect the flow. For instance it is no surprise to me that some of the longest line times are experienced in Atlanta where ALL people go through one central security checkpoint
In Flight Movie
It was that movie with Steve Martin and Queen Latifah. That movie made use of every stereotype about racist white people and hip hop black people and still managed to be funny without making me feel uncomfortable. I think that took courage to just have fun.
USA Today Gay Poll
The biggest thing that caught my attention was the poll results about how people feel about Gay Rights. Now either the pollsters made a mistake a couple of months ago, a mistake this time, or there has been a DRASTIC change in attitudes in just two months. I am convinced that my website has single-handedly made the difference--okay, maybe not;)
Tom DeLay
Things that USA Today thinks you and I should know about Tom DeLay.
Rod Paige in the Wall St Journal
Rod Paige, President Bush's Secretary of Education, made a case (link requires registration) for the use of school vouchers in the Washington, D.C. school district. He was doing fine on the general issue. Where he lost me was his statement that he and President Bush believe that an education is a "Right". What? It might be good policy, but it is not a right! Add this the list of proofs that Bush is a politician, not a conservative.
Barry McCaffrey
Am I the only one who thinks that his editorial (link requires registration) was pointless? I would much rather have preferred a piece where he admits that he was a fool in saying that we didn't have enough troops to win the war. He said that months ago. Now he thinks we don't have enough troops to win the peace. I wonder if he thinks we have enough troops anywhere? He may be right, but his credibility is sure shot.
Pilots Have All The Fun
Sitting next to me was an off-duty pilot. On the other side of him an attractive 18 year old girl. Let's just say that the pilot and the girl talked up a storm while I wondered why I didn't choose to become a pilot.
I am on a business trip and so instead of posting this morning, I was on an airplane. Rather than provide one of my normal lengthy posts I thought I would share my thoughts about the things I read in the newpapers while flying--as well as some general in flight observations. I read both the Wall St Journal and USA Today. I know that there is a big difference in the prestige and quality of these papers, but I think that they provide some different things which I value.
Airport Screeners
But before the papers. I went through airport security in a midsize airport. The lady behind me complained about the length of the security line. I don't get it, the line only took 5 minutes. Forget all the things that can be said about airport screening good or bad and recognize that at a minimum the screeners try their best to make it a quick process. I will say that I have observed that airport design does limit the ability of screeners to affect the flow. For instance it is no surprise to me that some of the longest line times are experienced in Atlanta where ALL people go through one central security checkpoint
In Flight Movie
It was that movie with Steve Martin and Queen Latifah. That movie made use of every stereotype about racist white people and hip hop black people and still managed to be funny without making me feel uncomfortable. I think that took courage to just have fun.
USA Today Gay Poll
The biggest thing that caught my attention was the poll results about how people feel about Gay Rights. Now either the pollsters made a mistake a couple of months ago, a mistake this time, or there has been a DRASTIC change in attitudes in just two months. I am convinced that my website has single-handedly made the difference--okay, maybe not;)
Tom DeLay
Things that USA Today thinks you and I should know about Tom DeLay.
Rod Paige in the Wall St Journal
Rod Paige, President Bush's Secretary of Education, made a case (link requires registration) for the use of school vouchers in the Washington, D.C. school district. He was doing fine on the general issue. Where he lost me was his statement that he and President Bush believe that an education is a "Right". What? It might be good policy, but it is not a right! Add this the list of proofs that Bush is a politician, not a conservative.
Barry McCaffrey
Am I the only one who thinks that his editorial (link requires registration) was pointless? I would much rather have preferred a piece where he admits that he was a fool in saying that we didn't have enough troops to win the war. He said that months ago. Now he thinks we don't have enough troops to win the peace. I wonder if he thinks we have enough troops anywhere? He may be right, but his credibility is sure shot.
Pilots Have All The Fun
Sitting next to me was an off-duty pilot. On the other side of him an attractive 18 year old girl. Let's just say that the pilot and the girl talked up a storm while I wondered why I didn't choose to become a pilot.
Jul 28, 2003
Holy Cow!
I have previously sited Veronique de Rugy as a good analyst of the out of control spending that the Bush White House is allowing to take place. Today she has a piece on National Review and I was thinking: 'I can guess what it says, I'll read it later'. And then I read it.
HOLY COW!!!!
I had to stop reading when I hit this quote: "Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively." Okay, okay, I know the education numbers are not a surprise to any conservative who was attentive when Bush and Teddy passed their version of education reform. But seriously, what does the Labor department do? Is that just because of unemployment checks? NO. I decided to check things out at the Department of Labor website. Sure the administration is planning on bringing Labor spending down for 2004, but what were they doing in 2001, 2002, and 2003? I might let them slide on 2001 since Clinton wrote that budget, but what gives?
It gets back to my point that this administration is not willing to confront anyone. If the Democrats want to investigate the President for making bad decisions they should forget about Iraq and focus on spending. The problem is that they would like to spend that much money as well. The administration does not want to defend spending cuts on the Sunday news shows. They do not want to confront the Teddy Kennedys and Robert Byrds of Congress.
Send Bush a check and he will sign it. W: it is time to get a stiff back bone on spending. Conservatives: I am afraid that the only way that W will listen is if we offer up a sacrificial lamb to challenge him in the primaries. Anyone interested?
I have previously sited Veronique de Rugy as a good analyst of the out of control spending that the Bush White House is allowing to take place. Today she has a piece on National Review and I was thinking: 'I can guess what it says, I'll read it later'. And then I read it.
HOLY COW!!!!
I had to stop reading when I hit this quote: "Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively." Okay, okay, I know the education numbers are not a surprise to any conservative who was attentive when Bush and Teddy passed their version of education reform. But seriously, what does the Labor department do? Is that just because of unemployment checks? NO. I decided to check things out at the Department of Labor website. Sure the administration is planning on bringing Labor spending down for 2004, but what were they doing in 2001, 2002, and 2003? I might let them slide on 2001 since Clinton wrote that budget, but what gives?
It gets back to my point that this administration is not willing to confront anyone. If the Democrats want to investigate the President for making bad decisions they should forget about Iraq and focus on spending. The problem is that they would like to spend that much money as well. The administration does not want to defend spending cuts on the Sunday news shows. They do not want to confront the Teddy Kennedys and Robert Byrds of Congress.
Send Bush a check and he will sign it. W: it is time to get a stiff back bone on spending. Conservatives: I am afraid that the only way that W will listen is if we offer up a sacrificial lamb to challenge him in the primaries. Anyone interested?
Gay Marriage Debate
There are many interesting articles to sight today. First, reference my original comments to see where I stand. I have refined things a bit since the original comments, and followed up with this and this. I do intend to continue refining my views and continue making the case that gay people don't really need marriage. If expressing a commitment to love is so important there is nothing preventing them from writing a contract, creating a will, and taking out a full page ad in the local newspaper.
One of the more interesting people I have stumbled upon in my reading is Maggie Gallagher--because she generally agrees with my approach to the issue. I don't think she knows who I am, oh well the suffering of the small-time blogger. But, I am interested in getting a copy of her book and I recommend her brand new site MarriageDebate.com. I first discovered her on July 14th of this year (just so she doesn't think I am just a copy cat my original statement was made on July 1). She has just had her views included in the Weekly Standard. Good job Maggie.
What is really interesting is that National Review is now adopting the same line of reasoning. At the risk of admitting laziness I admit that it is possible that National Review has had this position for a while. What is really exciting to me is that Andrew Sullivan has finally begun to respond to the presentation of this argument. Here is his response to National Review today. While Andrew Sullivan can ignore me, as he has done since I have made every effort to let him know that I was debating his view on gay marriage, he cannot reasonably ignore National Review.
Like National Review I am hesitant to envision amendments to the constitution. As a conservative I am inherently opposed to changes for the sake of change. The problem is that without any action we are faced with a change. There is no doubt in my mind that if conservatives simply opt to keep arguing that marriage be left as is, within five years we will have gay marriage nationally. Cynically one might fairly wonder: "so what, the whole thing is going into the gutter anyway", but I am willing to fight. There is a clear cultural risk to further abandoning marriage. One need only ponder the question from the perspective of why there is little proof that gay marriage has ever been the part of any culture--Christian or not. All these years of cultural tradition cannot be all bad. And to say that because liberals have already weakened marriage over the last 40 years so gays cannot really make it worse is really just a distraction. Because B made A weak does not mean we should ignore the possibility that C will make A even weaker.
To be fair to Andrew Sullivan I am willing to accept his premise that gay people feel ostracized in society. He hopes that marriage will change that by allowing gay persons to express love in the same way that heterosexuals can. However, the love expressed in marriage is only the expression of my willingness to accept the consequences of sex with you through a commitment. I guess in a sense gay persons may mean the same thing. The difference is that gay sex will never produce unwilling third parties that also need the parties of marriage to express a commitment. Andrew Sullivan has done some research to counter the argument that marriage is only for the children. He has found some statutes in Wisconsin and Arizona that allow incestual marriage if parties are infertile or too old to bear children. I don't dispute that these may be examples of marriage for love, solely. But that doesn't mean that marriage was not originally institutionalized to protect children. It just means that some legislators felt bad for incestual couples and made an exception. Which brings me to a tangential point. Andrew Sullivan criticizes the National Review for not being truly conservative in supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage. His premise is that the true conservatives would defend the right of states to decide for themselves. Andrew, I've got news for you. You are the true charlatan. A true conservative, gay or not, would be opposed to court mandated gay marriage and instead favor allowing the voters or their elected representatives to decide the issue. The last time I checked the voters do not like gay marriage. Even Californians, in the home of the gay capital of the world clearly went on record against gay marriage.
I hope that we can return to being sensible on the issue. Let's fix marriage and make it consistent for the sake of confirming the family institution. Meanwhile let's also recognize that gay persons do not deserve to suffer. Expose the real suffering and let's eliminate it. As for the insurance that marriage provides, with few exceptions, which can be easily remedied, everything that gay persons need may be provided by a contract, a will, and a newspaper ad.
There are many interesting articles to sight today. First, reference my original comments to see where I stand. I have refined things a bit since the original comments, and followed up with this and this. I do intend to continue refining my views and continue making the case that gay people don't really need marriage. If expressing a commitment to love is so important there is nothing preventing them from writing a contract, creating a will, and taking out a full page ad in the local newspaper.
One of the more interesting people I have stumbled upon in my reading is Maggie Gallagher--because she generally agrees with my approach to the issue. I don't think she knows who I am, oh well the suffering of the small-time blogger. But, I am interested in getting a copy of her book and I recommend her brand new site MarriageDebate.com. I first discovered her on July 14th of this year (just so she doesn't think I am just a copy cat my original statement was made on July 1). She has just had her views included in the Weekly Standard. Good job Maggie.
What is really interesting is that National Review is now adopting the same line of reasoning. At the risk of admitting laziness I admit that it is possible that National Review has had this position for a while. What is really exciting to me is that Andrew Sullivan has finally begun to respond to the presentation of this argument. Here is his response to National Review today. While Andrew Sullivan can ignore me, as he has done since I have made every effort to let him know that I was debating his view on gay marriage, he cannot reasonably ignore National Review.
Like National Review I am hesitant to envision amendments to the constitution. As a conservative I am inherently opposed to changes for the sake of change. The problem is that without any action we are faced with a change. There is no doubt in my mind that if conservatives simply opt to keep arguing that marriage be left as is, within five years we will have gay marriage nationally. Cynically one might fairly wonder: "so what, the whole thing is going into the gutter anyway", but I am willing to fight. There is a clear cultural risk to further abandoning marriage. One need only ponder the question from the perspective of why there is little proof that gay marriage has ever been the part of any culture--Christian or not. All these years of cultural tradition cannot be all bad. And to say that because liberals have already weakened marriage over the last 40 years so gays cannot really make it worse is really just a distraction. Because B made A weak does not mean we should ignore the possibility that C will make A even weaker.
To be fair to Andrew Sullivan I am willing to accept his premise that gay people feel ostracized in society. He hopes that marriage will change that by allowing gay persons to express love in the same way that heterosexuals can. However, the love expressed in marriage is only the expression of my willingness to accept the consequences of sex with you through a commitment. I guess in a sense gay persons may mean the same thing. The difference is that gay sex will never produce unwilling third parties that also need the parties of marriage to express a commitment. Andrew Sullivan has done some research to counter the argument that marriage is only for the children. He has found some statutes in Wisconsin and Arizona that allow incestual marriage if parties are infertile or too old to bear children. I don't dispute that these may be examples of marriage for love, solely. But that doesn't mean that marriage was not originally institutionalized to protect children. It just means that some legislators felt bad for incestual couples and made an exception. Which brings me to a tangential point. Andrew Sullivan criticizes the National Review for not being truly conservative in supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage. His premise is that the true conservatives would defend the right of states to decide for themselves. Andrew, I've got news for you. You are the true charlatan. A true conservative, gay or not, would be opposed to court mandated gay marriage and instead favor allowing the voters or their elected representatives to decide the issue. The last time I checked the voters do not like gay marriage. Even Californians, in the home of the gay capital of the world clearly went on record against gay marriage.
I hope that we can return to being sensible on the issue. Let's fix marriage and make it consistent for the sake of confirming the family institution. Meanwhile let's also recognize that gay persons do not deserve to suffer. Expose the real suffering and let's eliminate it. As for the insurance that marriage provides, with few exceptions, which can be easily remedied, everything that gay persons need may be provided by a contract, a will, and a newspaper ad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)