January 2005 Archives

Nutty Colorado University prof makes for easy blogging. See here, here, here, here, here, and many other places around the WWW.

Here's where the good Prof wrote;

The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.

That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

It's intellectual trolling. It would be best to ignore him and move on, but I'm a lazy blogger and Ward Churchill is a fat and slow moving target.

Update: Closely related, "Ward Churchill is the intellectual equivalent of [a] streaker."

Interviewer: "With Ben Nighthorse Campbell gone, any truth to the rumor that you're going to declare yourself Native American?"

Tom Tancredo: " I've got the Harley to prove it. I'm calling myself Tom Tom Tancredo. And I came up with that all by myself."

I swear I am not making this up.

T.T. being a Congressman gives me an odd sort of hope for the nation, proof that anyone can get elected to high office here.

h/t to Colorado Pols.

A slow day at work today, made very enjoyable by Coverville, featuring all cover songs. The site is the product of Brian Ibbot, a Denver resident. (isn't that Georgetown in the photo on the masthead?)

I especially enjoyed his favorites of 2004 songlist. I'm on my way to the record store.

A couple of articles about dead guys - Julian Sanchez interviews Robert Nozick on the publication of his 2001 book Invariances:

JS: You outline a series of different "levels of ethics," as you call them, the most basic being characterized by, as you said, "voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit," and the higher levels involving more responsiveness and caring for others and positive aid. Yet you say, and this is what seems particularly libertarian, that no society should go further than enforcing that most basic requirement of peaceful cooperation.

RN: Yes, and libertarianism never really claimed that all of ethics was exhausted by what could be enforced, by what one could legitimately be coerced to do or not do. That's the political, interpersonal realm that libertarian principles were about, not what might be the highest ethical aspiration.

Also, David Boaz on Robert Heilbroner, who died earlier this month, but not before making some admissions about socialism.

Radley Balko argues that the 'L' word should apply to libertarians, as leftists are not so liberal anymore. He's right.

Or, as John Powers said, ..."left has become — there’s no other word for it — reactionary."

Back in August I suggested a few things Democrats could do to restore some semblance of liberalism to themselves. Powers has some suggestions, too.

Powers article via Instapundit.

I've written about Colorado's Frozen Dead Guy before, but I never realized that FDG's caretaker is a fellow named Bo Shaffer, a Libertarian activist I've met on a number of occasions.

Bo will be on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno this evening, talking about FDG. This is according to the LP Colorado website.

A guy here in Colorado did this to himself without even realizing it.

Six days later he went to the dentist complaining of a toothache. A very memorable x-ray, I think.

Jim Lindgren recalls how Ronald Coase was made unwelcome at the University of Virginia because faculty and administration members saw him as a right-wing extremist. James Buchanan was treated similarly..

In the 1960s, just AFTER Ronald Coase had done his Nobel Prize winning work in law & economics and AFTER James Buchanan had done his Nobel Prize winning work in public choice, a concerted effort was made by members of their department and the administration at the University of Virginia to drive them out of Virginia.
[...]
Since Coase and Buchanan had tenure, they couldn't be fired, but Virginia decided not to make an attractive offer to keep Coase when Chicago offered him a job, though Coase has said that he might well have stayed had they done so. Buchanan was driven out in part by not tenuring his junior colleagues. That this was done a few years after Coase and Buchanan had done their best work is just stunning. Virginia began the 1960s as the most innovative and creative among the world's great economics departments and ended the 1960s as just another pretty good department, no better or worse than a couple dozen other departments in the country.

Coase has had more impact on me than perhaps any other twentieth century thinker, save Ludwig von Mises. His treatment at U. of Va. came close on the heels of McCarthyism, indicating that certain people didn't learn the lesson.

I should point out Coase didn't win the Nobel Prize until 1991. (There was no Nobel Prize in economics until 1969.) Seems his detractors didn't appreciate his intellect at the time. I wonder how they reacted when he won the Prize, decades later?

The ESA's page with pictures sent from the lander can be found here.

Jim Henley replies to Gary Farber's criticism of libertarianism. Actually Gary is responding to my comment when he writes:

Alternatively, we impose a middle man. We choose together to elect, via fair mechanism, a state and nation. We pick representatives to, ya know, represent us. And to vote on how we choose to give and take money from ourselves, along with choosing benefits that enable us to earn and have that money, and without which the laws of our chosen country, we'd have no such money -- said money wouldn't exist! -- and then we tax those who can spare it, in return for the benefits we've enabled them to earn and enjoy.

Jim -

I think Gary's "we" and "ourselves" here cover a multitude of sins. And while it may be true that "a state and nation" enable "us" to have money, it's at least as true that without the productive activity of individuals and voluntary groups state and nation themselves could not exist, nor could the benefits "we" use them to bestow on "ourselves." But leave that aside. His proposal is exactly what Tennessee has done. It chose representatives to vote and choose benefits, and said representatives have decided that they can't take that much more money for that many more benefits. This isn't any kind of libertarianism. It's the social democracy he calls for in action.

Which is pretty much what I was thinking. Furthermore, our healthcare system is a cumulative total of years of severe regulation of nearly every aspect of the business. In fact, it's hard to imagine what a truly private healthcare system would look like in this country. I'd like to think that it would be much more diverse, with many more treatment options, and much, much cheaper. We've priced so many people out of the system by inflationary government benefit programs that those programs have become more needed. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One quibble - we certainly don't need the government for us to have money. We've had privately minted coinage in the past in this country, and there's no reason we couldn't have it again. Right here in Denver, the early days of mining in Colorado, banks and other institutions were making their own money. Until the federal government put them out of business, that is.

Today is a good day to check out the Wolf Creek snow report.

Highlights- 24" in the last 24 hours. 90" in the past week. Forecast: Snow.

Wolf Creek is one of the few ski areas in Colorado I have yet to visit, but I hope to do so soon.

Maybe when the twins are old enough to ski...

Olliver Willis is asking right-wing pundits if they are on the take, Armstrong Williams style.

I like it, but it seems fair to find out if some lefties have ever done the same.

Avedon Carol, commenting on the Gary Farber post referenced in my previous post:

I agree with the sentiments expressed in this post wholeheartedly, though I'm surprised to see them expressed that way. But healthcare is a subject I have serious moral clarity about. It's a pity conservative morality holds taxes to be of greater importance than matters of life and death.

I'll note that we've moved from dissing libertarians to dissing conservative morality, and misguidedly so. (See here.) But what jumps out is the idea that taxes are not matters of life and death. Like every aspect of economic policy, taxes can destroy wealth and prevent its creation.

Nothing kills like poverty. Taxes which punish wealth and retard economic progress kill people, to put it plainly. You can argue what tax policies work best, but you should first acknowledge that poor tax policy can do tremendous harm, and that's something I'd consider to be profoundly immoral.

Gary Farber says I'm cruel and indifferent, and perhaps you as well. I argue.

He thanks me for arguing - But I'm glad you came by, Walter; my argument would be pointless with no one to argue against; thanks.

Likewise. He's distilled the argument against libertarianism to a simple point, that if we cut government services people will suffer and die.

I see other options.

What should we squishy human rights advocates do with the terrorists we catch? The Bush Admin policy of permanent detention is unnacceptable, for a number of reasons. Even worse, torture has been used in too many instances now.

You may be surprised to read that I agree with Dale Franks' ideas expressed here:

You know, It always amazes me that, practically every time one of us condemns the acts of torture that some of our people are apparently inflicting on Mideast terrorist types, someone's always quick to accuse us of going wobbly on the War on Terror.
[...]
Look, we've gotten ourselves into a situation where it appears that at least 28 people have died in our custody due to mistreatment. I object to that not because I think the terrorist prisoners are particularly deserving of our mercy. I object to it because it's a violation of the principles we're supposed to stand for. We're supposed to be the world's big defender of human rights. We're supposed to be a symbol of freedom and moral values that put us in opposition to the torturers, bombers and beheaders, not merely a somewhat more restrained version of them. Things like this do immense damage both to credibility and reputation.
[...]
My preferred method of dealing with these terror prisoners would be to get two captains and a major together as a tribunal, declare them to be unlawful combatants, and put them in front of a firing squad. Now, maybe, because we're nice guys, we could let them know that if any of them give us verifiable, useful information, then we'll commute their sentences, and won't shoot them. Otherwise, however, it's a blindfold and a last cigarette for the lot of 'em.

The difference of course, is that doing so would be legal. It would be part of the accepted customs of warfare that have been generally agreed upon for over a century. Torturing or beating them to death, without even the convenient fiction of legality, is not.

You see, I don't particularly care whether these terrorists live or die. Actually, that's not true, I'd prefer them to die. But if we are going to take the responsibility of imprisoning or detaining them rather than propping them up before a military tribunal before bumping them off, then that means we willingly accept the obligation to treat them humanely as prisoners. We do not do so because they deserve any such considerations, but because it is our moral duty to do so.

The fact that the terrorists do not accept that moral responsibility is irrelevant. We are not responsible for what others do. We are only responsible for what we do, and our duty to live up to our responsibilities is in no mitigated by whether or not others live up to theirs.

I cut out large chunks with ellipses, so RTWT.

My only objection - and it's not a disqualifier - is that we have a difficult time telling the bad guys from the not-so-bad guys. We should take great pains to ensure we're prosecuting the right guys. But if this is a war, we should treat it like a war. The firing squad is something I suggested a few days a go at Zomby's place. The intelligence value of incarcerated terrorists dwindles with time, and unlike a conventional war, there isn't likely to be a time when we can declare a cease-fire and send all our prisoners home.

h/t to Robert Clayton Dean of Samizdata.

I've written about the Tulia drug witch hunt a few times. Crooked cop Ron Coleman is on trial now, and Grits For Breakfast has the details, including on the spot reporting.

GFB has multiple articles, read as much as you can.

Dr. Madsen Pirie, Adam Smith Institute blog:

Days after the Tsunami struck, the EU imposed crippling tariffs of $4,540 a ton on Thai exports of cumarin, a plant extract widely used in perfume. Fraser Nelson reports in The Business that the move is designed to protect the French company Rhodia, Europe’s only producer of cumarin.
[...]
Michael Bayley, an Oxfam spokesman, described the action as "criminal." Others point to the EU's hypocrisy in offering aid with one hand, while denying them access to its markets with the other. It is a formula which fosters dependence rather than development, and typifies the way in which the EU protects its inefficient producers at the expense of people in developing countries trying to lift themselves out of poverty.

What to add?

Just to be clear, if Armstrong Williams can take money for his opinion, I'll do the same.

Cashier's check or money order only please. Unless you want me to advocate a tax increase. In that case it will have to be precious metals.

Say hello to Coloradopols.com. Covering Colorado Politics, you might have guessed.

Jeralyn reports that Denver's own Diana DeGette has been named House Chief Deputy Whip.

DeGette's press release is here.

This week Stephen B. Presser and Samuel Marcosson debate Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Be sure to check back.

via Howard Bashman.

Via Americans for Limited Government's daily news service comes this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer regarding a TABOR-style proposal being debated in Ohio. The article features views from Colorado politicos on how well the Amendment has worked here.

Carrie Harmon, spokeswoman for Denver's Bell Policy Center, which has extensively studied TABOR, said Colorado's TABOR formula is too inflexible to react to changes in the economy. Her center floated a proposal last year that would scrap the inflation-plus-population formula and link the cap to personal income.

"We've already done all the accounting tricks we can do," she said. "There just is not enough money to fund essential services."

True, if you think every last thing the State gov does is 'essential.' Check out this bit of editorializing from the PD writer, Julie Carr Smyth:

According to state Office of Planning and Budgeting forecasts, Colorado revenue will not return to pre-2001 levels until the 2009-10 biennium, meaning government will have seen actual growth of zero percent in close to a decade.

"TABOR forces us to a recessionary level of spending essentially forever," said Plant.

The Ohio proposal establishes the same growth formula that has become problematic in Colorado.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. No problem as far as I'm concerned. But the best quote...

But former Joint Budget Committee Chairman Brad Young, a self-described conservative Republican, said TABOR limits devastate the state's ability to write budgets in hard times.

"I came to the conclusion that TABOR doesn't just stop government from growing, it actually shrinks government over time. That's the purpose," he said. "That eventually leads to direct democracy, to everybody for himself. It creates an impossible situation."

I had to reread that passage a couple of times and make sure Mr. Young is really arguing against TABOR. Shrinking government means direct democracy? An 'impossible situation'? Who elected that guy?

The more politicians twist themselves into rhetorical knots the more I like TABOR, and if these ominous news reports scare you, I can assure everyone that Colorado is a very pleasant place to live. Especially now after more than a decade of TABOR.

His extradition to the US might be just the first of several from Colombia. Seems the Colombian government is using extradition as a bargaining chip with the leftist guerrillas and the right-wing paramilitaries. Rebels who make concessions gain immunity from extradition.

I don't know how effective this will be, but it's certain that it will keep the US neck-deep in Colombian politics.

Homicides in Denver were up nearly 50% in the last year vs 2003, with 94 murders reported. Denver is famously unfriendly to gun ownership, and it looks like our unarmed populace is finding other means of destruction. That's right, over half the murders did not involve handguns, according to the Denver Post.

Police are at a loss to explain the sudden increase in the murder rate:

There is no common thread, such as gangs, drugs or handgun violence, that can explain the increase, police say.

By contrast, 63 people were killed in Denver last year.

"We've had a lot of stuff this year that you don't even get in movie scripts," said Denver homicide Chief David Fisher.

This year, fewer than half of the homicides involved handguns.

Only 15 percent were gang-related. Eight people died in domestic homicides.

Eight homeless people were targets. Fourteen women were considered murder suspects. A grandfather is suspected of shooting his grandson. A brother is accused of stabbing his brother. In just one month, three dead babies were found discarded as trash.

Statistics can be funny things.

Last January I wrote about Simon Trinidad, the Colombian FARC rebel. Yesterday someone left this comment:

[...] I am from Venezuela and I can say some of the reasons to join these guerrillas are inspiring. I don’t condone violence, or any kind of extortions, but the reasons for these fights are valid ..the way these armed groups handle the situations or want to impose their vision ISNT. But it’s the only way they have. It’s like what Osama Bin Laden is doing. He is fighting imperialism and the reign the United States of America has had for the past 40 years across the Arabian world because of their oil. The only way he can do this is through violence. The reason people join these groups is because they are tired, fed up, and inspired by their ideals and vision.. and that internal fire burns more passionate than their comfortable life, in which all they do is observe injustice. I don’t believe being born wealthy is a reason to separate yourself from the problems and let it all be and enjoy your life doing other things the usual rich people do, such as drink, beautiful women, expensive houses and clothes, cars, etc. I believe if you are in a good economical position, with that you could help freedom fighters. If you are born privileged, then that’s only an advantage over other poor fighters, but you are human too, and as any other humans you have emotions. If something inspires you and you agree with it and its methods, you join. I personally am middle to higher class, and I watch immobile as injustice in the world takes place. From what the Americans have done in Iraq claiming it’s for their freedom, when they ve caused almost a million civilian deaths (officially) since the war started (between those at least a quarter of children, which is 250.000 ..this without counting the ones left injured without limbs and burned, even babies) to other world events as the ones happening in my own country or in Colombia, our neighbor. I feel impotent against this injustice and would love to do something about it, but I am just one person. If I could I would donate money to Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist organization that takes action against America, but that’s not easy, to find or communicate with them. But if I could, I would. And I am not poor, have no need to join those organizations for any other reason that agreeing with their cause, etc. I guess it’s just the emotion that takes over me; I would definitely join them in some way to help ..joining doesnt mean going over there to fight, i guess someone like me would be more useful out in the world watching, passing information, etc. And I am not the only one that thinks like this, there are thousands of people like me around the world ..dying to do something about things. Its just that not all get a chance as Simon Trinidad.

It's your petard, retard.