(2)

Glenn Reynolds links to this article on not one, but two different pipe bombings in San Diego.

I suspect the answer to the question "Why Haven't We Heard About This" is to be found in the lack of blood and bodies.

No bleed, no lead.

(6)

From time to time I have covered the efforts of libertarian heroes Carla Howell and Michael Cloud to bring about an end to the Massachusetts income tax. They succeeded in the collection and complex certification of a huge number of signatures; they defeated an underhanded counter-attack by the teachers union; they even overcame a law-breaking legislature:

Fourth, although the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state legislature to take testimony on and vote on our END the Income Tax Ballot Initiative, the legislature refused to obey the Constitution. The legislature refused to invite us to give testimony. They refused to vote on our initiative.

Fortunately, the legislature cannot exercise a "pocket veto," cannot block a ballot initiative by refusing to comply with the state Constitution. A Massachusetts Supreme Court decision allows our Initiative to move forward - even when the legislature violates the state Constitution.

Now they have one more hurdle before they get on the ballot. Another twenty thousand signature collected, distributed to each town for certification and then delivered to the appropriate State official by June 9.

Should be a dawdle for those two, but if you want to help you can do so here.

By the way, I will be working the JPMorgan Tech08 show in Boston later this month.

(23)

Andrew Sullivan, who seems to have bought into the Obama campaign wholesale despite Obama's Big Government views - hardly what Sullivan claims to support - makes this pretty sweeping assertion against those who are unimpressed by Mr Obama and his interesting choice of friends and associates.

It's extremely depressing that the first major national black politician who takes on the victimology of Sharpton and Jackson is greeted by the right with the kind of cynicism you see at Malkin or the Corner or Reynolds. It reveals, I think, the deeper truth: the Republican right only wants a black Republican to do this.

Well, I guess in the case of Malkin or National Review's roster of writers at its Corner blog, they are, you know, Republican supporters. They are more interested in the views of the candidate across a whole range of issues - Iraq, spending, the size of the government, security policy, immigration, trade - than whether he or she is going to somehow change the "victimology" that Andrew Sullivan writes about. It is a bit like Sullivan moaning that Roman Catholics are only in favour of black priests who are Catholics rather than Protestants. Well, duh. As for Glenn Reynolds, he once supported the presidential run of Al Gore, if my memory serves, so he is hardly a blind follower of the GOP.

Sullivan's critique of other bloggers would carry more weight if he could accept that US voters face essentially three big government candidates, albeit with subtle differences. I am surprised that Sullivan has not made more of why this is, and what to do about it.

(2)

Swiss banks have not had a good time of it lately, which does rather dent their image of being sober-suited outfits able to protect your millions. UBS, the Zurich-based banking and wealth management group, has booked a total of $37 billion in losses connected to the credit crunch. Wow. Even other banking groups in the Alpine state, like Clariden Leu, Julius Baer and Credit Suisse, have suffered - though not remotely as badly as UBS, which possibly may break up or get taken over.

So I was a bit bemused to read that Credit Suisse has hired former US Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta as an adviser. Has no-one told Credit Suisse that this fellow used to be known unflatteringly as "Underperformin' Norman" when he was in charge of sorting out airport security and other areas?

(46)

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests', I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

- Barry Goldwater, US politician. As cited by David Mayer, over at his excellent blog.

(6)

I live about twenty miles from the polygamist ranch near Eldorado, Texas, and my office is about three blocks from the courthouse where the child welfare case(s) are being handled. A few observations, from up close:

The Schleicher County sheriff seems to have been in firm control of the law enforcement activities at the ranch, and there really is no federal presence or role at all. This probably has a lot to do with the lack of any kind of violence or armed stand-off, in contrast to the Branch Davidian, um, incident, where the feds disregarded the local sheriff’s advice and went in heavy.

I am perfectly willing to believe that there were all sorts of sexual abuse of teenage girls – illegal marriages, statutory (and perhaps even forcible) rape, etc. If the current allegations pan out, I think that the men involved in what amounts to a sex slavery ring should be jailed, and I am even willing to grant that the state should have the authority to take custody of children who have been subjected to this kind of abuse. For the moment, let us leave avoid the well-ploughed ground about the appropriate age of consent for sex.

That said, this case increasingly looks to me a like a serious overreach by the state, and one that practically begs us to conclude that the state was motivated to take down this community, even when doing so required it to go beyond what was necessary to ensure the welfare of the children.

(Warning: Actual statutory language and legal analysis follows below the fold)

The state has taken custody of all the children at the ranch, alleging abuse. The applicable definition of abuse is found in the Texas Family Code Section 261.001. Relevant provisions include (emphasis added):

"Abuse" includes the following acts or omissions by a person:

(A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning;

(B) causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning;

(C) physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator that does not expose the child to a substantial risk of harm;

(D) failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent an action by another person that results in physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child;

(E) sexual conduct harmful to a child's mental, emotional, or physical welfare, [citations omitted]

(F) failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child;

(G) compelling or encouraging the child to engage in sexual conduct [citation omitted];

Note that some of these definitions include allowing another to abuse a child.

The standard for the state to take custody of a child is found at Texas Family Code Section 262.101.

An original suit filed by a governmental entity that requests permission to take possession of a child without prior notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:

(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;

(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under Subchapter C; and

(3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child.

(1) First question: Why the boys?

I have heard nothing that indicates that any of the boys at the ranch were physically, emotionally or sexually abused. The state seems to be arguing that, because they were being raised in a polygamist community, they were being raised to be abusers. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that this really meets the definitions of abuse set forth above. Are we really prepared to conclude that raising someone with a certain set of religious/social beliefs amounts to "an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning" or is a "mental or emotional injury"? Are we really prepared to apply that standard across the board?

(2) Second question: Why the young girls?

Again, I have heard nothing that indicates that any of the young girls at the ranch were physically, emotionally or sexually abused, and have the same questions about whether being raised in a community such as this is per se abuse. Granted, leaving the young girls at the ranch sets up a difficult question about when you do remove them because they have grown into an "immediate danger" of being abused, but I am also less than comfortable with the idea that someone who is not now in immediate danger of abuse can be removed from their home because there is a mere foreseeable risk of abuse.

(3) Third question: Why separate the children from their mothers?

I suppose the easy answer to this is that the mothers were accessories, under the definitions stating that allowing another to abuse a child is also a form of abuse. If so, why were the mothers allowed to remain with their children for some time after the state removed them from the ranch? Further, once the mothers and children were separated from the men, I do not see how any kind of continued abuse would be possible, so what is the justification for the subsequent decision to separate the mothers from the children after they had been removed from the ranch?

(4) Fourth question: Why remove the children?

The standard for taking custody of a child refers to the "physical health or safety" of the child or "neglect or sexual abuse", none of which seems to apply to the boys or younger girls, even if you grant the argument that being raised in a polygamist community is a species of abuse due to some presumed mental or emotional injury.

The standard also includes a requirement that "reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child". I can think of all kinds of steps that the state could have taken to protect the children without removing them from the ranch, including maintaining a law enforcement presence at the ranch to ensure protect the teenage girls. The state has maintained such a presence at the ranch since day one. Is the state saying that Texas Department of Public Safety, Rangers, and Sheriff’s Deputies on-site cannot protect the children?

(5) Fifth question: Why are the men still walking around free?

I do not think there is any question that the primary perpetrators were the men at the ranch, not a single one of whom has been arrested. Nonetheless, the children and their mothers have borne the brunt of state action here, while the wrongdoers are walking around free. Are we really saying that we had probable cause and sufficient evidence to take custody of every single one of these children, but not probable cause and sufficient evidence to arrest anyone? I suppose there is a gap between "We believe this child has been abused" and "We know believe this man (out of the dozens at the ranch) committed the abuse," but still...

(6) Sixth question: This is due process?

Leaving aside the question of whether a single mass hearing for hundreds of children could ever be due process for anyone involved, some of the attorneys reportedly could not hear or follow the hearing from their video feed at a remote location, and the court did not have copies of evidence for each attorney. The hearings pretty much ground to a halt over entirely predictable logistical problems, but the court went ahead and ordered the children placed into foster homes.

The case is, as they say, developing. I will keep you posted.

(5)

It is occasionally an accolade when a person's name becomes a figure of speech, such as 'Churchillian' for example. Far more commonly however it is a sign of cultural stigmatisation: a Hitler, a Napoleon, Fisking, Dowdification, Pilgerisation... these are not saying anything nice about the source of the respective terms.

And to which must be added, to be 'a Spitzer'.

There is a magnificent article on TCS Daily called The Universal Spitzer that I strongly commend to everyone:

It is a shame that we only laugh at a Spitzer when his secret sex life is revealed to us. Instead of mocking Spitzers for their private foibles, we should be contemptuous of their public pronouncements. Whether it is "cleaning up Wall Street" or "giving everyone health care," the Spitzers are making extravagant promises that only result in expanded government power.

Great stuff. Read the whole thing. The article also links to an excellent article by Virginia Postrel about the deeply unpleasant John McCain which I missed first time around.

(12)

Apparently they are exclusive alternatives. According to Wired:

Maine is now the lone state not to have been given an extension to long-delayed Real ID regulations, after three fellow protesting states - Montana, New Hampshire and South Carolina - got their extensions in the last two weeks despite not pledging allegiance to Real ID.

What was it Maine in particular did to offend? There is no clue. One might suspect being the easiest to blockade has something to do with it. Bullies like to pick on the weakest victim when making an example.

Assuming no actual bombs get on the plane, then it scarcely matters who the passengers are - particularly since the rules did change in one important respect on September 11th 2001 and few are likely to sit quietly and do what a hijacker says, as they were advised to before that date. If someone could explain to me why any identification at all is needed to board a plane - other than that the government just wants to know where you are going - then I'd be most grateful for the explanation.

[* Yes I know that is New Hampshire, but presumably it is in the line for the DHS's third degree.]

(14)

Laird Minor, one of our commentariat who has spent a lifetime in this sector of the financial industry felt the first article on the subprime financial crisis gave an incomplete picture. He proceeded to fill in the rest of the story in such fine form that I am re-posting his comment here on the front page so that it will, in conjunction with the first article, give our readers a much better idea of what is going on and what to expect.

Having been a participant in one way or another in the subprime mortgage industry for over 20 years, this is a topic in which I possess a fairly substantial degree of expertise. The first article is reasonably accurate as far as it goes, but there is a lot more to the story. I could probably write a book on this, but I will try to keep this post as brief as I can.

The CRA only applies to banks, and while banks are the originators of a large number of mortgage loans, non-bank lenders have come to comprise a substantial portion of the mortgage industry. This is especially true in the subprime sector. Thus while the CRA was a typically bad Washington idea, propounded by "poverty lobby" zealots with no conception of how the market works, it isn't really the principal source of the problem. That honor goes to Wall Street.

Subprime loans are not "agency-eligible", which means that they can not be sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the two huge quasi-governmental agencies that dominate the mortgage world. For this reason subprime lending remained a fairly small segment of the market, much like "payday lenders" are in a different market, until Wall Street figured out how to securitize the loans. Securitization is an extremely valuable financial tool, as it allows loans, which in essence are nothing more than streams of cash flows, to be combined into giant pools and carved up into separate "tranches" having different characteristics as to timing, default risk, etc. By separating these cash flow streams the tranches can be sold to different investors with different investment criteria (insurance companies, for example, have clear actuarially-determined timing needs for cash) which results in better pricing. Overall, securitization created a more efficient market for mortgages, which benefited everybody. Unfortunately, it got out of hand, primarily because of the rating agencies and, to a lesser extent, the monoline bond insurers.

Mortgage-backed securities are rated by Moody's, Standard & Poors, and Fitch, to determine their investment grade. This affects both price and the appropriate universe of investors. As more and more subprime mortgages and especially unusual ones like "pay-option ARM" loans began to be placed into securitization pools, the rating agencies failed miserably in analyzing them and forecasting their performance characteristics. Monoline insurers, who provide bond insurance for the highest-grade bonds, similarly failed to adequately model these loans' performance, and thus imposed inadequate credit enhancements (loss reserves, subordination levels, etc.) on the deals. Lenders found that they could sell all the loans they booked, with no meaningful penalty for weak credit quality, so of course they expanded their guidelines. They were merely reacting rationally to signals the market was sending, and do not deserve all the blame for the ultimate melt-down.

So the mortgage pools got riskier and riskier, but no one really appreciated that fact until delinquency levels began to surge last summer: there is a fairly long lag time between mortgage origination and delinquency. Once investors realized how bad the pools had gotten they stopped buying the bonds. The market for mortgage-backed securities ground to a halt almost overnight; pricing for existing securities went into free-fall, and new deals simply couldn't be completed. And since banks and other financial institutions which own most of those securities are required to write them down to current market values, their paper (unrealized) losses ballooned. This is the reason for such events as the Bear Stearns failure; it had pledged those securities for its borrowings, and when the bond values plummeted and the loans were called they could not come up with the cash.

It is a typical Wall Street "bi-polar" overreaction, but the pain is very real. Property values, which had been driven up by speculative excesses and cheap money (as noted in the first article), are falling rapidly, especially in the areas where they had risen the most (Florida, southern California, Arizona, etc.), and until they bottom out the liquidity crunch will continue. Eventually that will happen, though, and when it does things will return more or less to normal. Hopefully the participants in this market will have learned something from the experience, but I am not sanguine about long-term wisdom; Wall Street has a short memory, and the next generation of traders will probably repeat at least some of these mistakes.

So there is blame to go around: foolish laws and regulations; inadequate understanding of the effects of weakened credit standards; a few, but very few, truly predatory lenders taking advantage of unsophisticated borrowers; and greedy borrowers who were speculating in real estate values or who simply wanted to extract all of the equity in their homes for current consumption. In my opinion this last group is getting far too little of the blame. It was a market failure of monumental proportions, but as long as the politicians will stay out of the way the market will correct itself; it always does. Unfortunately, it now appears that politicians, who always want to be seen as "doing something", whether it makes sense or not, will muck around in matters which they don't understand and make things worse.

The Law of Unintended Consequences will come back to bite us. It always does.

(59)

From NRO 'The Campaign Spot':

The tour will begin at McCain field, named for the family in Mississippi. McCain will note in a speech there that a distant ancestor served on George Washington’s staff, and "it seems that my ancestors served in every conflict this country has fought". One of the themes in that speech will be how government should support parents, and how it should help, not complicate, how parents pass on their values to their children.

Holy. Crap. And this is the Republican candidate. Read that again: "government should support parents, and how it should help, not complicate, how parents pass on their values to their children". Just de-construct that for a moment. Is that not a phrase that should send cold shivers down the spines of anyone who thinks civil society has been fucked over by the state quite enough for the last fifty or so years, thank you very much?

Clearly the government does not want any old values passed on to the kiddies, so John McCain must see a role for state approved politically vetted family values. And what if someone want to pass on the values of respecting the property of others and so not tolerating proxy theft via third parties (like, say, the state), is Johnny going help out there somehow? How about atheism? Contrary to the popular perceptions, I know a great many God-Free Americans (almost all of whom are self-described hyphenated Republicans). Will the state give them a hand passing that one on to Junior too? How about utter contempt for the political elite and their army of functionaries? John McCain's kind offer to 'help' is another manifestation of the baseless arrogance of so many members of the political class who think that civil society revolves around the state and is something for them to tinker with.

So John, let me tell you how to "help, not complicate, how parents pass on their values to their children"... mind your own goddamn business. There is nothing complicated about that.

(19)

I received and read a copy of this article from DC Downsizers early this month but have only today been given a go ahead for republication. I think you will find it an interesting and refreshing account of just who is responsible for the whole subprime mortgage problem.

You can watch hours and hours of news, or read columns of print in most newspapers, and come away no wiser about the causes and prospects for the current financial turmoil.

Most journalists and TV talking heads do not really understand the subject, and those that do speak and write using so much jargon that the average person must feel he or she is trying to follow a conversation in ancient Hebrew.

We are going to try to cut through the jargon, and explain the situation as best we can, in plain English. If you find our explanation of value, please forward it to others.

The current housing crisis, and all that flows from it, comes from two main sources, both deriving from Washington.

First, Congress passed something called the "Community Reinvestment Act" in 1977, resulting in the creation of bureaucratic regulations designed to encourage, or even compel, financial institutions to make loans to people with lower incomes. These regulations were then amended in 1995 and 2005 to create different rules for institutions of different sizes, so that various kinds of institutions would be better able to meet the government's goals for fostering home ownership in lower income communities.

Second, the Federal Reserve starting making loans available to the banking system at extremely low interest rates.

Third, steps one and two combined to make cheap housing loans available to people who could not have afforded or qualified for them before. This caused an increased demand for housing that sent home prices spiraling upward.

Fourth, mortgage lenders managed the risk involved in making these loans by selling their mortgages to other companies, which in turn thought that they were managing their own risk because they had a wide variety of mortgages, from many different types of borrowers, in their portfolio.

Fifth, these decisions about how to manage the increased risk created by the "Community Reinvestment Act" were all in error, because the Fed's policy of easy money had falsely inflated the value of ALL homes. This meant that good mortgages could not be used to manage the risk involved in questionable mortgages, because the value of ALL homes was falsely inflated.

Sixth, as with all inflationary booms, increases in home prices finally absorbed the increased purchasing power provided by the Fed, leading to a slow-down in home purchases. When this moment arrived everyone realized that the homes they had purchased weren't really worth what they had paid for them. The defaults and foreclosures then began, along with the collapse of the financial institutions that owned these unsound mortgages.

Now, the complicated, multi-part scenario described above has been simplified in popular reporting to just two words: sub-prime loans. These two words, combined with the idea that lenders took advantage of poor unsuspecting customers, are supposed to explain everything. But this explanation is both simple and simply insufficient.

A study by the Mortgage Bankers Association tells the true story. In the third quarter of last year fixed rate mortgages accounted for 45% of foreclosures, while sub-prime ARMs accounted for only 43%. (See Cato)

It's not hard to understand why. Who wants to be on the hook for a mortgage that is tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than the property is really worth? Rather than bear this burden, many borrowers are choosing to default, and walk away from their properties. This is especially happening with speculators who bought houses in order to "flip" them. To cope with these foreclosures . . .

Banks have offered their bad mortgages as collateral to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. The money the Fed lends through this process is created out of thin air. This has two shocking consequences. First, the Fed is coming to effectively own an increasing portion of America's stock of housing, and two, these Federal Reserve loans are inflating the money supply, causing prices to rise all through the economy.

As the Fed creates more and more new dollars, the value of all the previously existing dollars declines. This forces people to seek ways to protect their accumulated wealth against the devaluing effects of monetary inflation. Thus . . .

People buy other currencies, causing the exchange value of the dollar to fall They buy gold, pushing the price up above $1,000 an ounce And they buy oil futures, driving up those prices too

But it gets worse . . .

Monetary inflation is making foreign investors reluctant to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. Who wants to hold bonds denominated in dollars when the Federal Reserve is reducing the value of the dollar?

The "London Telegraph" reports that foreign participation at a recent auction of U.S. Treasury bonds fell from 25% to less than 6%. (See Telegraph)

Sadly, there is every reason to expect this phenomenon to continue. This will leave the Federal government with only two options for funding its ever growing deficits. The government must either pay much more interest on its bonds, to compensate lenders for the monetary inflation, or it must sell its bonds to the Federal Reserve System, which will buy the bonds with yet more money created out of thin air, adding still more fuel to the inflationary fire.

The more the Federal government has to pay in interest, the larger the deficits will grow, or, the more it borrows from the Federal Reserve, the more it will have to pay in interest to private lenders. It's a vicious bind.

There is one thing the Federal government could do immediately to lessen this bind. It could cut spending to balance its budget, thereby reducing inflationary pressures. Please use our "Unfunded Liabilities" campaign to ask Congress to do exactly that.

Use your personal comments to tell Congress that you know foreign participation in U.S. bond auctions is declining. Tell them you do not want them to sell their bonds to the Federal Reserve, thereby driving up the money supply. CONGRESS MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET NOW. You can send your message here, at DownsizeDC.org.

Then, do one thing more. Send Congress a second message asking them to pass Ron Paul's "Honest Money" bills. Use your personal comments to tell Congress that you're aware that the current crisis was caused by a combination of the "Community Reinvestment Act" and the Federal Reserve's easy credit policy. Tell them you want Ron Paul's "Honest Money" bills to curb the ability of the Fed to inflate the money supply. You can send that message here, at DownsizeDC.org.

(27)

Tom Clougherty on the ASI Blog today points to a great article by the Cato Institute's David Boaz on the two groups that threaten liberty in the United States: "The Hillarys and the Huckabees". At Tom puts it:

The Huckabees, named after Republican primary also-ran Mike Huckabee, are the big government conservatives who want government to fill God's shoes, stamping out sin and telling everyone what to do and what not to do. They're the people who reject the social liberation of the 1960s.

Meanwhile:

the Hillarys (no prizes for guessing who they're named after) reject the economic liberation of the 1980s. They "want to raise taxes because they think they can spend your money more wisely than you can. They don't believe in school choice because you don't know how to choose a school for your children. They think they can handle your retirement savings and health care better than you can." In short, the Hillarys want government to treat citizens as parents treat children – the nanny-state writ large.

What a relief that neither camp's glorious leader is going to be US president.

(10)

Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

- Dallas Morning News (with thanks to Engadget for picking up on the story)

(6)

The downfall of Eliot Spitzer has recently been celebrated on this blog, and rightly so. However, I believe the major casualty of the affair will prove to be Hillary Clinton, rather than Spitzer. This juicy scandal will deliver the Democratic nomination to Obama. You could almost - almost - feel sorry for Clinton; the press was only just starting to crack the shiny Obama veneer, when this had to go and happen. Who will pay any attention to Rezko and co. with this circus unfolding over the next few weeks? It will suck the oxygen right out of Hillary's campaign at the critical juncture - just when it was catching fire.

Not that Obama as the Democratic candidate will necessarily be a bad thing for the Republicans; the more I see and read of him, his views and his actions, the more I am convinced that Obama08 is John McCain's smoothest path to the White House.

(53)

If I was a believer, I would be pouring a thankful libation right about now. Eliot Spitzer, one of the most nasty power crazed politicos in US politics today, perhaps second only to Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson in authoritarian thuggishness, has just shown that he who lives by the judicial sword, can oh so easily die by the judicial sword. To see a man who thought nothing of using the power of the state to intimidate those who dared cross him get caught in a Federal wiretap is... well... sweet. I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

Update: heh... just found an article in the New York Times which has almost the same title and sentiments

Update 2: oh this gets better and better... not only has he resigned apparently, it is causing dyspepsia for his statist confrères at the Huffington Post. Happy days indeed.

(20)

[Samantha] Power is gone now - but not for the odd article this post points to. No the lady was fired because she said (to a journalist for 'The Scotsman') that Hillary Clinton was a monster who would do anything for power.

In short the lady was dismissed for telling the truth. After all the Democrats have to kiss and make up at some point.

- Paul Marks

(14)

It appears that courts in the USA feel it is perfectly all right to issue a search warrant to raid someone's house on the basis of higher-that-average electricity use. The linked example happened a few years ago but I gather it is not all that unusual a basis for a search in the Land of the Free. Presumably as I often have five computers running that is the sort of thing that would attract the attention of The Fuzz in the USA too.

I also noticed that the search warrant allows them to search for 'firearms'... so is possession of a firearm a criminal offence in the People's Republic of California these days?

(9)

University of Tennessee law Professor Glenn Reynolds has an excellent paper on jury nullification, a subject near and dear to the hearts of libertarians.

Jury nullification is a common law concept with ancient roots in Anglosphere law. During the run up to the American Civil War it was used repeatedly, and much to the State's chagrin, to make the Fugitive Slave Act unenforceable. Juries would not convict persons arrested for assisting in the escape of slaves.

Law in the US has again taken a turn towards State convenience and interests over those of the individual and liberty so it is high time we dust off this legal concept and start telling judges and the legislature to 'shove it'.

(15)

Sometimes I wonder whether the news editors in the media "join the dots", to coin a phrase. Scanning my Bloomberg machine this morning (part of my day job), this headline was prominent:

Chicago's Snowiest Winter Since 1979 Depletes Budget

Then, on the same Bloomberg front page, is this:

Gore Invests $35 Million for Hedge Funds With EBay Billionaire

Gore has, of course, made himself a mint and also burnished his Green credentials with his film, An Inconvenient Truth, a film that has had great influence in encouraging the idea that the Earth is at serious risk from man-made global warming, although others remain to be convinced. Fair play to Gore: if he has managed to make a lot of cash by producing a film and persuaded enough paying customers to see it, well who am I, as an ardent capitalist, to complain? If he wants to invest in those mysterious-sounding things called hedge funds, even better (they are not all that bizarre, by the way, just a form of investment fund with a few tricks). But if the city of Chicago is running short of cash to pay for all the snow clearance, maybe the councillors should phone up Al and ask for a donation. After all, the current freezing weather in so many places must be er, Man's fault, right?

(9)

For me the idea of the state installing cameras everywhere to ensure compliance with its edicts was the most memorable aspect to George Orwell's dystopian 1984, with Newspeak a close second. But of course here in the real world, the state would never try to force private business owners to allow the state to place cameras to make sure people are following regulations, right?

Wrong.

Cameras could be placed in about 800 U.S. slaughterhouses to watch for improper procedures and inhumane handling of cattle, a federal official said Thursday. A Senate committee recommended installing the cameras three years ago, but the proposal is getting new consideration in the wake of a massive recall of beef last month, Agriculture Undersecretary Richard Raymond told a House committee Thursday.

And what comes next? Cameras in schools and daycare centres naturally. For the children of course. And after that? I mean, why stop there?

(3)

The very worthy folks of the Free State Project are holding an event in June in New Hampshire to highlight their work and maybe attract some more supporters.

[PorcFest 2008] is the FSP annual event as an out reach to those that are interested in migrating to promote Liberty and Freedom. We are trying to get the message out to a larger population that there will be a gathering of Liberty Activist coming together from anarchists to those working within the system meet and make the migration.

If you are interested in supporting the FSP and becoming a 'porcupine', check it out!

(18)

As many of our readers already know, Carla Howell succeeded in collecting a sufficient number of signatures for her ballot initiative to end the Massachusetts income tax. There may be further legal challenges but it will almost certainly be on the ballot this year. With polls showing a dead heat between yes and no voters the inappropriately named "Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation" is already preparing its defense of high taxes.

Although the core battle is months away, politicians are already hitting back. Can you guess which party this statement came from?

"I personally understand why someone would vote for it out of frustration that Beacon Hill has not been doing its job for quite a few years now," says Torkildsen, a former congressman. "A lot of people on Beacon Hill start the argument with how much money would they like to spend," he says. "A better starting point is, 'What's an appropriate level for people to pay?' and then 'What's the most economical way for the public officials to use that money?'"

It was from Peter Torkildsen, the Republican state party chairman of Massachusetts.

And you wondered why libertarians do not flock to the Republican Party?

The correct answers to Torkildsen's quiz are: "Zero" and "Leave it with the honest folk who earned it".

(16)

I am live-blogging the primaries over at my election blog. My prediction: the Hildebeast will not die. This is good for John McCain as the chances of more dirt getting dug up and thrown at the two Democrats is getting ever greater.

Also, the obvious ticket of a year ago: Clinton/Obama or even Obama/Clinton, looks somewhat hard to pull off now.

(5)

The fine folks on The Line is Here (subtext: an anti-nanny state collective) have started something called the Picador Project which may be of interest to our USA based readers.

The Picador Project was started in order to combat what many of us see as a root problem underlying the pernicious rise of the nanny-state mentality in our society. Namely, that too many people believe they are entitled to gifts from the government, coupled with a government all too willing to hand those gifts over in return for a few basic human freedoms and a monopoly on “truth.” This sort of trouble being a perennial consequence of basic human nature, utopian schemes of running off and starting over are never the ultimate solution. Thus, if we want to preserve our way of life, we have to face these troubles here at home and conquer them.

Check it out.

(28)

There is an interesting article on Martin Kramer's Sandbox blog about Obama adviser Samantha Power. The article points out the extraordinarily daft 2002 foreign policy suggestions made by her and Michael Ignatieff (who I have met a couple times... nice enough for a total Guardianista) in which she urges US military intervention against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. But in the quoted part of her problematic remarks...

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people.

... the real 'money quote' for me is not the bizarre notion of (in effect) going to war with Israel, it is "But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway."

Her remark is a pretty clear cut rejection of the US Constitutional Republic in favour of unrestrained democracy. That is of course clearly what Obama thinks as well and why he will not allow the Second Amendment to get in the way of what he wants. So it is hardly surprising that he chooses an advisor who shares his opinion that constitutional limits on democratic politics are something to be sad about. It is also something that needs to be pointed out loudly and often by people who think limits on what the state can do are a very good idea indeed. At least Samantha Powers is somewhat honest about the fact she feels the US Bill of Rights is a regrettable limitation on untrammelled democratic politics. I wonder how many politicians would be so candid?

(23)

William H. Stoddard of San Diego, California has some interesting commentary on the state of the debate between Clinton and Obama on what they want for US health care policy

Health care policy is a major issue in the Democratic Party's choice of a presidential candidate. The final debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in Ohio, spent a reported 15 minutes on it. Yet the mainstream news media in the United States consistently report that there are only very minor differences between the positions of the two candidates. Given this, the argument looks like little more than semantic quibbling over the meaning of the word "universal," all too typical of Clinton's struggle to contest Obama's unexpected rivalry for the nomination.

But the mainstream news media have it wrong. There is, in fact, a vitally important difference between the two positions, though one that their worldview makes them ill equipped to recognize. The difference is that Clinton would compel everyone to purchase health insurance; Obama would not. The standard label for this difference in health policy debates is "mandate," for what Clinton wants.

Clinton has been evasive about exactly how she would compel the purchase of insurance - which is not surprising, as talking about punishing voters is not a good selling point in an election. The state of Massachusetts, which has a mandate, imposes fines on adults who do not have health insurance. Clinton has not talked about fines, but has suggested garnishing wages or making enrollment compulsory on admission to any hospital.

Of course, Clinton promises to make health insurance affordable to everyone, through subsidies and through massive new regulation of the insurance industry. So does Obama. But what if their plans do not work out? Under Obama's plan, adults who thought even subsidized health insurance cost more than they could pay would remain uninsured, and at least be no worse off. Under Clinton's plan, they would be forced to sign up, or penalized for not doing so - and either way they would be hurt. And given that Clinton predicts that fifteen million Americans would remain uncovered under Obama's voluntary plan, it seems that she anticipates that fifteen million people would have to be hurt financially to make her plan viable - or, perhaps, simply to justify her in calling it "universal."

Obama, in fact, has fairly clearly called attention to this difference. In the debate, he said, "We still do not know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don’t know the level of subsidies that she’s going to provide, then you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can’t afford it, even with the subsidies..."

For libertarians, of course, which plan is less bad is a fairly straightforward question: the one that allows a measure of free choice is a lesser evil than the one based on coercive social engineering. And a non-trivial part of the electorate may feel the same way; where hard-core Democrats often favour Clinton's views, independent voters are reported as less supportive of mandates.

But there are hard questions about mandates even from the perspective of the Democratic Party itself. On one hand, people between fifty and sixty-five (where Medicare comes into effect) consume substantially more health services than younger people. Younger people are more likely to decide their low health risks do not justify paying for insurance. So forced enrolment would compel many younger people to pay for insurance they would not purchase voluntarily - but the benefit of enlarging the pool and lowering insurance costs would go disproportionately to older people. And on the other hand, those same older people are much more likely to own houses, to have savings and investments, and in general to be able to afford health care. So what Clinton is proposing is a regressive redistribution of wealth, from the worse off to the better off. It is hard to see how this makes sense within the publicly announced ideology of the Democratic Party.

It does make a kind of sense, though, within a different framework - the version of class analysis propounded by the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard, which emphasized conflict between the people who pay for taxes and redistributive schemes, and people who benefit from them.

Who supported the two candidates? Leaving aside the obvious "identity" politics (blacks favoured Obama; women favored Clinton; Hispanics, a group often in conflict with blacks, favoured Clinton), Obama had unusually strong support from younger voters, and Clinton from older voters; that is, Obama from Democrats who would be hurt from Clinton's scheme, and Clinton from Democrats who would profit from it. And Obama was favoured by Democrats with incomes above $100,000 a year, Clinton by Democrats with incomes below $50,000 a year. This is less obvious, but higher income people are more likely to be self-insured (so that forcing them to buy insurance would be to their disadvantage as they see it). So it looks rather as if Obama has managed to put together an insurance proposal that is more favourable to the very people who have been voting for him all along, and Clinton one that similarly appeals to her base. And the conflict between the two is a struggle between net victims and net beneficiaries of Clinton's redistributive scheme.

Whether Clinton and Obama recognize this is not clear. Of course, neither of them discusses such issues in their speeches; they both have to present their ideas as being best for everybody. Health policy theorists certainly do not see any conflict - and most of them favour Clinton's approach. But Obama's statements suggest that he is aware that mandatory health insurance could hurt some of the worst off people in American society; that he thinks this is a bad idea; and that he is prepared to make an issue of it. In a small way, this seems to make him the lesser evil as far as health care is concerned. If nothing else, he does not seem to cherish the idea of forcing everyone into a comprehensive administrative scheme for its own sake, regardless of the cost to the people it claims to help. Health care policy experts seem to feel otherwise - and so does Clinton. This is, of course, the core position of the established Democratic Party, the authoritarian liberal party of American politics. Obama's support might represent a realignment of less authoritarian voters increasingly unhappy with the Republican Party's fall into militarism, theocracy, and big government. The Democrats could only be improved by playing for their continued support.

(23)

John McCain has called himself a 'liberal Republican'.

In other news today, Maria Sharapova called herself a 'tennis player', Nicolas Sarkozy called himself 'President of France', Natalie Portman said she was interested in Scarlett Johansson's breasts and Terry Pratchett called himself 'an author'.

(7)

Dr. Murray Sabrin is running for the United States Senate in New Jersey and reportedly has devoted his career to promoting limited government and personal freedom.

There will be an online fund raising event today (February 29) and Dr Sabrin hopes to raise $1.5M by getting 15,000 Americans to pledge a minimum of $100 each. If he succeeds, he will be the favorite to win the U.S. Senate seat against Frank Lautenberg.

I do not personally know much about him but we can certainly do with all the real constitutionalists in DC that we can get.

(35)

There is a depressing article at Reason magazine about the protectionist instincts of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What the article does not tell us about much is whether McCain is much better (I honestly do not know, so I welcome comments about his voting record). And of course George W. Bush hardly made friends with Britain by slapping tariffs on steel imports - which also hurt American manufacturers and builders (but they lacked powerful friends in Congress). America is the largest economy in the world and despite what some of the more starry-eyed writers on China or the other 'Brics' might claim, is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Basically, America matters. If the country goes down a more protectionist path, it will hit the world economy in general. For all his many flaws, Bill Clinton's signing of the NAFTA Treaty - admittedly when Congress was in Republican hands - was one of the few major achievements of his time in power. It has helped to fuel the ascent of the world economy, lifting millions into higher living standards: if any fans of trade restrictions out there want to contest that assertion, let them provide figures. Here are some official US ones that give some pretty punchy numbers.

As the title says, I wish they could all lose. I have had it with the media guff about how a McCain-Obama contest will somehow elevate American politics and 'restore' its image in the eyes of the world. What is the point of winning image points among the Guardian-reading classes if you pull a rug under the world's economy through greater trade restrictions? How is that going to help America's 'image', assuming that Americans could or should give a flying **** what people think of them in the first place?

(8)

One of the most important writers and intellectuals of America, William F. Buckley, has died. I did not agree with all of his views, but it would be churlish and extreme bad manners not to acknowledge his enormous influence in the fightback against what was, when he started out, the entrenched Big Government views of the US. He was, by all accounts, a most civilised, friendly and good man. As they say, he left the world a better place. He is one of those American intellectual and political figures, like Barry Goldwater, whom I regard, warts and all, as heroes.

May he rest in peace. My condolences to his friends and loved ones.

(11)

It seems John McCain, of McCain-Feingold fame and little else, has been hoist on his own petard and run afoul of the anti-democratic, anti-free-speech and anti-liberty FEC regulations.

This could not happen to a more deserving individual.

(22)

You have nothing to lose but your place at the trough and a whole world to win!

One non-conservative Big Government Republican (George Bush Sr.) praising the 'conservative' credentials of another non-conservative Big Government Republican (John McCain). I assume I am not the only finding this more than a little absurd. These guys are not 'neo-cons', they are 'non-cons'.

(43)

Michael Totten has a superb article up that compares the approach to counter-insurgency followed by Israel under the dismal Ehud Olmert, and that of the US in Iraq under General David Petraeus.

What Totten points out is that the policies promised by Barack Obama for Iraq (in essence remove the army and drop bombs on anyone who seems to be the Bad Guys) is essential the same as the demonstrably failed approach used by Ehud Olmert in Lebanon. Israel blew the crap out of Lebanon from the air and achieved precisely zero of its war aims.

Read the whole article.

(45)

I have read more about the Che and flag incident in the Houston Obama office today and my biggest concern over this affair now is the poor woman who was to 'blame' for it. We really have to be careful in the blogger world about building mountains out of molehills and using verbiage to turn neighbors into ideological enemies.

From what I have read via Little Green Footballs, I see someone very much like many close and dear friends of mine. People who I disagree with but whom are nonetheless good people with whom you would not at all be averse to spending an evening arguing ideas over some good wine.

She did something really dumb and probably never even considered setting up 'her space' with a familiar and comfortable decoration would actually mean something in the real world. Many people spend much of their lives without learning that lesson and are surprised when it happens. She possibly managed some minor and unintentional damage to her favoured candidate and in punishment is cowering in her home in fear of all those hateful people who are sending venom her way.

This is certainly not the Samizdata way as you all well know. Ideas can and should be argued... but one must recognize the humanity and very often the basic decency of the people you disagree with.

I sincerely hope her McLuhan fame is soon over so she can get back to her normal life.

PS: I have intentionally not mentioned her name or given a link.

(15)

This article is in the LA Times titled Doctors balk at request for data:

The state's largest for-profit health insurer is asking California physicians to look for conditions it can use to cancel their new patients' medical coverage. Blue Cross of California is sending physicians copies of health insurance applications filled out by new patients, along with a letter advising them that the company has a right to drop members who fail to disclose "material medical history," including "pre-existing pregnancies".

Firstly all aspects of medical care, including insurance, are regulated to bits in the United States (especially in California), and it is the government regulations and subsidy programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid - but in recent years SCHIP as well) that are at the root of the high price of medical cover. But to turn to the specific question:

If someone lies about their medical history when filling out a contract, in order to get less expensive medical cover, they are guilty of fraud. In an alternative world, which I am not saying I would support, they would not only be dropped by their insurance company when their fraud was exposed - they would also be prosecuted.

Of course, in our world, they will not be prosecuted and would not be convicted if they were prosecuted. It is much the same with all the political talk about "fraudulent lending" in the mortgage market. There has been vastly more fraudulent borrowing, but I doubt that the vast number of people who lied on their mortgage applications (for example claiming to have an income much greater than they really have) will be prosecuted.

However, in an alternative world (which, again, I am not saying I support) prosecution and conviction would solve the problems of customers guilty of fraud - medical cover and a roof over their heads.

Prison provides both.

(28)

This article on the Ron Paul news site has a very interesting photo of the Obama Houston Campaign office. You really want to take a look.

It would be much improved by a propeller beanie.

(56)

Now that the rather dismal Romney has bowed out, it looks like absent a brokered deal by genuine conservatives, the truly dismal John McCain will get the Republican nomination.

My hope is that he asks Fred Thompson to run as his veep... and that Thompson tell him to go fuck himself (and if he accepts, then Thompson was not the man some folks thought he was).

Although I am rarely in enthusiastic agreement with Ann Coulter, I agree with her basic premiss regarding John McCain. Better to have the statist poison introduced by the Hildebeeste or Obrama than a Republican, because if McCain gets into the White House, that is the end of the Republican Party as anyone in the Goldwater or Reagan tradition will abandon them, quite possibly forever. The Republicans will be dead and gawd knows it will be a well deserved death.

Of course the upside of a seismic shift style Republican collapse is maybe a new political grouping is indeed what is needed, one that can also appeal to the deeply civil libertarian elements on the so-called left (yes, they really do exist). I have met many Democrats who would never consider supporting Republicans for tribal/cultural reasons and yet quite frankly are deeply uneasy bedfellows with the intolerant authoritarian 'Daily Kos' style left that so loves Hillary Clinton. Every cloud has a silver lining.

(35)

I must admit to being surprised by the volume of comments that this "Samizdata quote of the day" item provoked; I am not aware that we got linked to by some pro-Clinton blogs. One thing that did strike me about the comments was the apparent ignorance of the new commenters as to the philososphical bias of this blog (pro-liberty, pro-capitalism, small, if not minimal government, robust view on defence, etc). My dislike of Hillary/Obama/McCain/Huckabee/Romney is pretty consistent all the way through. Their unifying characteristic is their belief that government can do many good things and should do these things a great deal. Not one of them has - unless I missed it - made the sort of general, shrink-the-state comments that were the trademark of Reagan in his prime (that's not to say, of course, that the Gipper actually was as marvellous as some of his supporters might claim). Of course, there remain differences, but none so much to really make a major shift in the direction of American, or for that matter, western politics. If Clinton were elected and we got a re-run of the Clinton psychodrama of the 1990s, it would be tedious, even a dangerous distraction from serious events, but I am not convinced it would be the end for Jefferson's Republic. On the other hand, if McCain got elected, he'd probably only want to serve out one term, as he is getting on in years.

Why does any of this matter? Well, like it or not, what happens across the Big Pond resonates here. British politicians look for suggestions that western political ideas are moving in a particular way. At the moment, Big Government, Greenery, micro-management of personal behaviours via the tax and legal system are dominant ideas, although there is some fightback. This is why, infuriating though it may be to Little Englanders, the US Presidential elections get so much attention.

I'll just be relieved when it is over so we can go back to bashing Gloomy Gordon and Dave.

(20)

Hayek? .... Check!
Hazlett? .... Check!
Von Mises? .... Check!

Ron Paul gave an extremely cogent economics talk to Seattle Business leaders which you can watch here.

He even wants to dump Sarbanes-Oxley. What more could you ask?