The Right Coast |
|
|
Thoughts from San Diego on Law, Politics, and Culture
Right Coasters
Gail Heriot Saikrishna Prakash Michael Rappaport Maimon Schwarzschild Thomas Smith Christopher Wonnell Email Us Gail Heriot Saikrishna Prakash Michael Rappaport Maimon Schwarzschild Thomas Smith Christopher Wonnell Links Andrew Sullivan Atlantic Blog The Buck Stops Here Corporate Law Blog Crescat Sententia Crooked Timber Curmudgeonly Clerk Daniel Drezner En Banc EveTushnet.Com FreeSpace How Appealing Instapundit Law and Econ Blog Little Green Footballs Legal Theory Blog The Leiter Reports Marginal Revolution Overlawyered Pejmanesque ProfBainbridge.Com Punishment Theory Rasmusen Weblog SFA Politics & Relig Southern Appeal SpoonsExperience USS Clueless The Volokh Conspiracy The Yin Blog Archives The Bear Flag League Aaron's Rantblog (LA) Absinthe & Cookies Accidental Jedi (Fres) Angry Clam (LA) Baldilocks BlogoSFERICS (Expat) BoifromTroy (LA) CalBlog (Los Angeles) California Republic Citizen Smash(SD) Cobb (Los Angeles) Daily Pundit (SF) Dale Franks e-Claire(Northern CA) Fresh Potatoes(Orang) Infinite Monkeys The Interocitor (LA) The Irish Lass (Sacra) Left Coast Conserv. Lex Communis (Fres) Master of None (LA) Miller's Time (Sac) Molly's Musings (SD) Mulatto Boy (LA) Howard Owens (Vent) Pathetic Earthlings) Patio Pundit Patterico's Pontifications(LA) PrestoPundit (Orange) QandO Right on the Left Beach Shark Blog (Expat) Slings and Arrows (SD) So. Cal Law Blog (LA) Tone Cluster Window Manager Xrlq (Orange) 
|
May 31, 2005
Now both their music and their politics suck (explicit lyrics) By Tom Smith You put up with the nasty, ranty left wing politics for the music, but what happens when the drug-addled, self-indulgent thrashers let you down? You certainly have no reason not to say so. The new Audioslave album sounds like somebody said, you may be enraged against the machine, but it takes some serious bucks to live this lifestyle, so it's time for another album, boys! Sounds like Audioslave ground this thing out under an injunction. Yes, I know, you can't personally enforce, etc. etc., and this album is an argument for why. This is what art sounds like when it's forced. Or maybe it's just what your brain looks like on drugs. And yes, I'm just assuming they're drug addled slackers, as most rockers are. It is so sad. Speaking of down, don't listen to these guys. I have a 13 year old son, so I listen to them all the time, and I can tell you, don't do it. The worst thing is, something about their lyrics and weird, little Armenian tunes gets into your head, and will not go away. What do you want to bet these revolutionaries grew up in splendor in Los Angeles before they became professional detractors of the American way of life? What a country. Where else can you make millions singing little ditties about the fascist oppression you labor under, to the undulations of scantily clad 16 year old groupies? Their video for whichever tune it is ("why don't Presidents fight the wars/ why do we always send the poor . . . where the fuck are you?") is particularly nauseating, as well. The reason we send the poor, by the way, is because most millionaire rock stars are too busy spending their money and their brain cells to fight for their country. Why fight for your country when you can make millions running it down? You put up with Audioslave because they (used to) rock. System of a Down is just a bunch of spoiled LA weenies. Maybe Homeland Security could deport them: they could write a song: "where the fuck are we? Where the fuck are we?" In some country that won't put up with you, that's where, you losers. Oh, No! Has the Wall Street Journal Become Impervious to Reason? By Gail Heriot Loyal readers may recall a three-part series I wrote a few months ago entitled "Don’t Blame Pete Wilson for Making California a Blue State." (If not, you can read it here, here and here.) In it, I tried to respond to the Wall Street Journal editorialist Brendan Miniter's accusation that former California Governor Pete Wilson had somehow transformed California from a toss-up state into a Democratic stronghold on account of his allegedly anti-immigration agenda. Evidently what I said failed to get through, since in today’s Political Diary (no link available; it's a subscription service) Mr. Miniter repeats the slur that an anti-immigration agenda "cost Republicans control of California in the 1990s." I did e-mail him earlier. But evidently my message either went unread or was unpersuasive. (A third possibility is that aliens bent on destroying the WSJ’s credibility have entered Mr. Miniter’s body and are purposely causing him to make inappropriate accusations, but I am willing to leave this possibility aside for the moment at least...) Let me try again..... 1. Pete Wilson’s so-called anti-immigration agenda consists of his strong support of Proposition 187–a 1994 initiative that prohibited the State of California from granting certain state benefits, including welfare benefits, to illegal immigrants. It's worth noting that 187 applied to illegal immigrants only and not to legal immigrants. For the record, I opposed Proposition 187. But I was very much in the minority. Proposition 187 passed overwhelmingly with 59% of the vote in 1994. Any argument that Proposition 187 supporters have been politically damaged as a result of their support for that extraordinarily popular measure should bear an enormous burden of proof. 2. It’s not just that supporters of the "Proposition 187 backlash" theory can’t overcome that burden of proof. They have no evidence of a backlash against Republicans at all. Latinos, for example, the group most likely to resent Proposition 187, do not appear to have changed their voting patterns as a result the 1994 initiative. Indeed Proposition 187 itself got a larger share of the Latino vote (23%) than George H.W. Bush had gotten back in 1992 (14%)(with 71% for Clinton and 15% for Perot and others). In 1996, Latinos gave Dole 22% (and 70% for Clinton, 7% for Perot). In 2000, 23% of California Latinos voted for George W. Bush and 75% voted for Gore. There does appear to have been some improvement in the 2004 election when it is estimated that 31% of the California Latino vote went to Bush and 68% to Kerry. 3. The real explanation for California’s switch from a toss-up state to a reliably Democratic state is far simpler. It’s not California’s immigration policy, it’s immigration itself. As I’ve said before, Pete Wilson could have met each and every immigrant at the border with a bottle of champagne and a brass band and the result would still be the same. Recent immigrants from Latin America and Asia tend to vote Democratic. And there are a lot more of them in California now than there used to be. Hispanics have gone from being 25.83% of the California population in 1990 to 32.38% in 2000. Asians have gone from 9.56% in 1990 to 10.92% in 2000. Non-Hispanics Whites, on the other hand, have decreased in absolute numbers due to out-migration and low birth rates and thus moved from being 57% of the California population in 1990 to only 46.7% in 2000. Again, there is no evidence that these individuals when they become voters are any more Democratic-leaning than they've ever been; the difference is only that there are more such voters than there used to be in the California electorate. And that difference is huge; it dwarfs any possible effect that Proposition 187 could be imagined to have. 4. The Left is full of folks who hate to let facts get in the way of their political fantasy world But I’d like to keep the feet of my fellow conservatives as close to the ground as possible. It’s fine to be pro-immigration. I’m moderately pro-immigration myself. But it’s important to at least recognize that it has its costs. Among those costs for Republicans is the fact that recent immigrants tend to vote for Democrats. At some point, that will cause a state (like California) to go from being politically contested to reliably Democratic at least in the Presidential election. ((In statewide elections, Schwarzenegger proved that a Republican can still win under certain circumstances, but Schwarzenegger is a special case for a lot of reasons, so it's not clear yet what those circumstances are.)) Does any of this mean that the immigrant vote should be conceded by the GOP? Of course not. It should (and must) fight for every vote it can get. But it’s important to be realistic and recognize that only so much progress can be made in the short run. It is only in the long run that one can move a lot of votes from one party to another. 5. Recent evidence on Asians voting patterns further confirms that immigrants from Asia tend to vote Democratic. A recent exit poll of 11,000 Asian voters (82% of them immigrants) in eight states east of the Mississippi showed that they went for Kerry over Bush 74% to 24%. This is obviously not the result of Proposition 187, since the polls didn’t even include California. ((The poll–conducted for the liberal Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund–may nevertheless have overstated the Asian preference for Kerry. An L.A. Times national exit polls found Bush carrying 34% of the Asian vote. Either way Bush was trounced.)) 6. I’ve been trying to figure out what might inspire Mr. Miniter to believe in the Proposition 187 backlash myth and I wonder if maybe somebody once showed him statistics on state by state Latino voting patterns. If so, they would probably show California Latinos leaning more Democratic than Latinos in many other states. From this, he might conclude that Proposition 187 was to blame. But again, demographics are the real explanation. Other states have more Cubans in their Latino electorate than California does. Cubans are more likely to vote for the party that they regard as the more anti-communist. That ordinarily is the GOP. Similarly, among Asian voters, Vietnamese voters, especially those with memories of the fall of Saigon, tend to vote in higher proportions for the GOP than other Asian voters. How a state's Asian electorate will vote will thus depend in part on the proportion of Vietnamese voters in the group. May 29, 2005
David Brooks Updates Karl Marx, Part 2 By Gail Heriot My fellow Right Coaster points out David Brooks' NYT column for today. (For a link, go to Mike's post below, since when I blog from my antiquated home computer, as I am doing now, I cannot furnish links.) In it, Brooks' Karl Marx alter ago asserts that according to a study by the Educational Testing Service, only 3% of the students at elite colleges and universities are from households in the lowest-income quartile--a figure that he and others find troubling. But if the ETS study is like the studies that have gone before it on this topic, then the 3% figure is exaggerated (although I've no doubt that a more accurate measure would still show significant disproportionality). Households that are in a plausible position to send a child to college are not by any means a cross-section of American households. For one thing, they all have a child around age 18. The parents, whether they are both present or not, have at least one thing in common: They are not spring chickens. Even the unwed mother who gives birth at age 15 will be 33 by the time her child is old enough for college. The older parents are, the more likely they have their act together, and the more money they are likely to make. As a result, households with children around age 18 are disproportionately from the higher income quartiles. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the effect I'm describing is rather large. May 28, 2005
USD School of Law Graduation Today By Gail Heriot Congratulations to the Class of '05. (And my apologies to anyone whose name I mispronounced or otherwise inflicted harm upon during the Roll Call of Graduates at the ceremony this morning.) Special congratulations to valedictorian Sebastian Lucier, salutatorian Tonya Cross, and Ben Ammerman, winner of the Owen Stark Heriot Prize (named in honor of my late father and given each year to the outstanding student who is a present or former member of the armed forces). May 27, 2005
The Wild Kingdom of Public Policy By Gail Heriot One of my favorite Monty Python skits was entitled "Life or Death Struggles"--a spoof of pompous nature shows. As the screen depicts men dressed up as horses fighting with each other, a German-accented voice intones: "In the hard and unrelenting world of nature the ceaseless struggle for survival continues. This time one of the pantomime horses concedes defeat and so lives to fight another day" After a few more shots of animals (or people pretending to be animals) involved in "life or death struggles." the narrator goes back to the pantomime horses: "Here we see a pantomime horse. It is engaged in a life or death struggle for a job with a merchant bank. However, his rival employee, the huge bull pantomime horse, is lying in wait for him. [Smaller pantomime horse is killed.] Poor pantomime horse." It didn't occur to me until much later in life that the guys at Monty Python were really onto something. Human beings will fight like animals to preserve their jobs. It's seldom a pretty sight. And it's surprising how many major public policy issues are driven by such considerations. A few years ago when I worked on the Proposition 209 campaign, I noticed the folks who argued in public against Proposition 209 were overwhelmingly employed as affirmative action officers and felt their jobs to be in jeopardy. And many of them were as scrupulously devoted to truth and accuracy in debate as ... well ... a pit bull ... or a pantomime horse. This leads me to what I will call "Heriot’s Iron Law of Public Policy: No matter how silly, wasteful, wrongheaded and/or harmful a particular program might be, it will take an extraordinary exercise of political will to eliminate it once someone’s job or other substantial financial benefit depends on its continued existence." Please remember that, Gentle Reader, whenever you are in a position to make policy. Unless you are really sure that a policy is a good one, make sure no one is hired specially to execute it or it will be close to impossible to terminate the program. There is, of course, a corollary to this rule that has been thoroughly grasped by the Left: If you want to entrench a policy that your opponents object to, the best way to do it is to make sure someone is specially hired to execute the policy. Even if the person you hire is not initially a true believer, he will be by the time his first paycheck arrives. And he will fight tooth and nail to preserve the program you love if it is ever threatened. I thought of this today when I took a look at the proposed new "Five-Year Plan" for diversity at the University of Oregon. Among other things, it calls for aggressive hiring of up to 40 new faculty members in areas like "critical race studies, critical gender studies, queer studies; disabilities studies" who will be teaching in a variety "Cultural Competency" programs for faculty, students and staff. Yup, 40 new faculty members, that ought to just about do the trick.... Politics and philanthropy By Tom Smith Interesting history of both liberal and conservative philanthropy. I did not know a lot of this stuff. It's really too bad McGeorge Bundy didn't decide to be a botanist or something. May 26, 2005
How economic policy gets made By Tom Smith This is a nice interview of somebody who knows what he is talking about, unlike Paul Krugman, who has chosen to be ignorant. Why they serve By Tom Smith This is a beautiful piece in USA Today by my former student and friend Kathryn Roth-Douquet. Kathy (as I called her) has a fascinating story. She was an assistant deputy in DOD, a quite responsible post, in the Clinton administration, when she met the handsome aviator who flew Marine One, the President's helicopter. Now Kathy is the CO's wife, has two lovely kids, and her husband, Greg, has just left for his second tour to Iraq, in command of (my military terminology fails me here) a large group of Marine choppers. Dangerous, important work. Kathy explains why Marine families do it. I have learned a lot from Kathy. Whenever I am tempted to think that conservatives or Republicans have a monopoly on patriotism, I think of Kathy and Greg. I never have or will make a sacrifice like they have made for this country. The Marines may be mostly a pretty right wing lot, but there are still plenty of Marines, soldiers and airmen who vote on the Democratic side of the ballot. Another thing is something about patriotism, as transfigured through an organization like the Marines. Having had quite a few Marines (there really doesn't seem to be such a thing as a 'former Marine') as students over the years, I have seen the way they really are a band of brothers (and sisters) and a band of families. It helps give you a clue about what makes a nation a nation, what allows it to survive, and what makes it worth fighting for. It is something like love. Yet it is almost as if to be an academic, you have to prove that you are completely unaware or indifferent to this. So add Kathy and Greg and their family to your list of people to pray for this Memorial Day. Family, in this context, covers a lot of ground. HERE is the official website of Greg's unit. The official history makes interesting reading. I AM advised by a former Marine USD Law grad that former Marines may refer to themselves as 'former Marines' but never 'ex-Marine.' May 23, 2005
Peace in our time By Tom Smith Once again, the stupid party lives up to its name. In fairness, the Republicans have only the barest majority, and several of them are not really Republicans. A "deal" was probably inevitable. But here's the point the commentators seem to be missing. Who's to say if the deal will really stick? Toobin on CNN and other commentators are speaking as if, when W puts up a conservative for the Court, and 40 Democrats say that's "extraordinary," the Republicans will just sit back and take it, because that was the deal. But political deals fall apart all the time. It's just a matter of how much pressure the Republicans are under, and they will be under a lot. This deal just puts off a battle, and like most such delaying tactics, it will make the battle more ferocious when it actually comes. It might be different if the moderates believed in something more than moderation for the sake of moderation. But they don't. They are just the people who believe (in some cases, like Chafee's, accurately) that moderation is more politic, given their own circumstances. If Bush nominates a conservative for the Supreme Court, and he probably will, my prediction is this deal is going to blow up big time. Fat Hype By Tom Smith Our friend and frequent recruiting target Paul Campos at Colorado-Boulder gets a lot of play in this must-read (for people who follow this sort of thing) article on the obesity controversy. Paul's book The Obesity Myth, seems to be getting a lot of attention. Some sages criticized Paul for writing a book that is not really about Law, as in The Law. People who know Paul know he is not overly preoccupied with what other people think. He even has certain tendencies toward fearlessness, an extremely rare trait in academics, which makes you wonder what tenure is for . . . In any event, the book seems to be just the sort of thing a Public Intellectual should write. If medical mavens are spouting bad science in order to maximize grant money, somebody has to call them on it, and other scientists may be reluctant to do so. Good work, Professor. Now, for another helping of mashed potatoes. May 22, 2005
ETS President Hurls Ill-Considered Insults By Gail Heriot American corporate leaders have never been known for their political courage. They generally try to keep their heads down when any sort of threat is in the air. Way down if possible. Unfortunately for conservatives, the result is usually corporate statements and activities with a distinctly politically correct flavor. Corporate leaders correctly recognize that it is far easier to get hurt by angering those on the left side of the political spectrum than it is by angering those on the right. Consequently, they make very sure that they give no cause for offense in the leftward direction even if it means occasionally rubbing everyone else the wrong way. But the Educational Testing Service goes too far. Sure, ETS considers itself vulnerable to left-leaning political attacks on account of its products--the SAT, the LSAT, the MCAT, etc. On average (subject, of course, to significant individual variation), Blacks and Hispanics don't do as well on these tests as Asians and Whites. Here are the SAT I group averages from 1999 (the year for which I happen to have the statistics handy): Asians: 499 Verbal/565 Math African Americans: 431 Verbal/425 Math Mexican Americans: 453 Verbal/460 Math Whites: 528 Verbal/530 Math These figures are disappointing to almost evryone. As a result, ETS has had to defend itself from attacks from the left. For example, the Clinton Administration's Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights Norma Cantu went so far as to issue guidelines for the use of standardized tests, which, if implemented, would have wiped ETS off the face of the Earth--thus shooting the messenge rather than solving the problem. But none of that excuses the full-page advertisement that ETS has taken out in the Weekly Standard (and I assume elsewhere)entitled "Making Diversity a Reality." Of course, it's a paean to diversity. But that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Every corporation in America sings that tune. What bothers me is Landgraf's reckless accusation concerning the motives of employers who find work place diversity difficult to achieve. In the ad, he states: "[T]he response that 'We want to have a more diverse workforce, but we just can't find enough qualified candidates' doesn't cut it. Worse than an excuse, it's frequently code for something else entirely." Say what? Landgraf doesn't specify what the "something else" is, but it's obvious from the context that he's talking about racism. It is evidently Mr. Landgraf's opinion that American employers are "frequently" covering over sinister racist motives when they complain of their difficulties. Such an accusation trivializes the the genuine problems faced by employers seeking to hire qualified minority (or non-minority)employees. ETS, perhaps more than any corporation in America, is aware of those difficulties. Talented employees are hard enough to find when race and ethnicity don't matter. Finding them in just the right skin color is very difficult indeed. Was this ridiculous statement written by Landgraf himself? Or one of the many diversity "experts" that ETS has hired in recent years in a mostly unsuccessful effort to appease ETS' critics. Either way Landgraf is way off base and should apologize. May 20, 2005
Is Harvard Unconstitutional ....? By Gail Heriot John Eastman recently drew my attention to the Massachusetts Constitution, which contains the following provision on Harvard University: Chapter V, Section I, Article I. Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year [1636], laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great prominence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences which qualified them for the public employments, both in church and State; and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America, it is declared, that the president and fellows of Harvard College, in their corporate capacity, and their successors in that capacity, their officers and servants, shall have, hold, use, exercise, and enjoy all the powers, authorities, rights, liberties, privileges, immunities, and franchises which they now have, or are entitled to have, hold, use, exercise, and enjoy; and The document justifies giving Harvard special privileges and immunities (although it isn't clear exactly what those privileges and immunitie are) on the ground that the encouragement of arts and sciences "tends to the honor of God" and "the advantage of the Christian religion." This raises an amusing question. If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts chose to ratify and confirm Harvard's status in order to confer honor on God and advantage on the Christian religion, shouldn't that make the grant (or the re-grant) of Harvard's charter "unconstitutional" under some popular interpretations of the Establishment Clause? I suppose Harvard could argue that the Massachusetts Constitution was adopted on 1780 and hence the grant was already complete by the time the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted. But I doubt anyone would argue that if the Commonwealth had granted any official status to the Unitarian Church that it would be "grandfathered" in simply because the grant had occurred before 1788. Maybe the ACLU can be persuaded to look into this..... May 19, 2005
The Federalist Society Has an Heir By Gail Heriot Congratulations to my friends Gene and Lori Meyer on the birth of their first child. The as-yet-unnamed son entered the world at 10:43 a.m. Tuesday. May 17, 2005, weighing 7 pounds, 3 ounces. Mother and child are doing fine at Fairfax Hospital. May 18, 2005
The most boring nuclear event ever By Tom Smith There's something weird in the zeitgeist surrounding the confrontation in the Senate over judicial nominees. I can't quite figure it out. For one thing, the MSM doesn't seem quite as hysterical as they should over it. They are somewhat hysterical yes, but it is certainly not the "Satan himself has been nominated to the Court" that we had with both Bork the Infidel and Clarence the Unbeliever. Is the story too complicated? Are the liberals holding fire? Or are they just outnumbered and exhausted? Or are they just rightly embarassed by the position that the President and the majority of the Senate should not together be able to select federal judges, if 41 democratic Senators disagree? I know extremely distinguished constitutional scholars have taken both sides in this debate, in some cases first the one side, and then the other. So it is hard to know what to think. But to me, the fillibuster seems an odd constitutional principle to take a stand on. And in the event, not a very good tactical choice either, as it seems the Senate rules probably will allow the majority to force debate to end and a vote to be taken. In any event, what puzzles me is why the end of the world talk has been relatively muted. If I had to guess I would say, they're saving themselves for the Supreme Court fight. Remember, when you say "right to choose," you're not taking about Republican Presidents. The Church of Chess By Tom Smith Eugene has a link to a nice law professor authored chess site. It is not exactly what the doctor ordered -- more on that later. My problems are more basic. The following exchange from this morning explains. My 13 year old Luke: Dad, did you really call chess club "The Church of Chess"? Me: Yes, Luke. I was trying to get everybody to shut up. They wouldn't talk in church, so I was telling them it was the church of chess, where they should just be quiet and play chess. I thought it was a pretty good analogy. Luke: Well, everybody is making fun of you now for saying that. Patrick (11): Yeah, Dad. Everybody is making fun of you. Me: Well, it was just a joke. To try to get people to quiet down. Patrick: They didn't know it was a joke. They thought you were weird. They have no idea. The problem I see with teaching chess is to get the little demons to play plausible openings (e4 or d4) and not do STUPID THINGS (a4 is an ever popular stupid first move). Another big problem is the transition between the first few moves of the opening and what you might call the later opening. It seems very hard to convince kids they really should think about things like establishing a position or even getting control of the center of the board. Too boring, I guess. Instead they go off on these bizarre lines that would make smoke come out of Deep Blue's cooling vents. There's only one more meeting this year. Next year, I think I'm going the Supernanny route. There will be tables, assigned games, scores kept, tournaments, clocks and scorecards kept. By God. The whole, we're just getting together to have fun playing chess, is a recipe for chaos and ennui. Structure! Order! Of course, they may find some other dad who is less weird. "Deep Blue Campuses" By Gail Heriot These figures are from the Leadership Institute's study of political giving by employees of elite universities. I've included the most extreme schools (both pro-Kerry and pro-Bush)--Dartmouth, which was 100% for Kerry and Vanderbilt, which was only 64% for Kerry. I've also included some of the schools that are nearest and dearest to the hearts of Right Coasters. The actual study includes more schools. Harvard: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--25 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar%--97% to 3% //Number of Donations--406 to 13 Princeton: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--302 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar%--99.7% to 0.3 //Number of Donation--114 to 1 Yale: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--20 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--95% to 5% //Number of Donations--150 to 3 Duke: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--9 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--90% to 10% //Number of Donations--98 to 7 MIT: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--43 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--98% to 2% //Number of Donations--121 to 2 Stanford: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--6 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--86% to 14% //Number of Donations--257 to 28 Columbia: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--8 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--89% to 11% //Number of Donations--197 to 14 Dartmouth: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--Infinity Kerry/Bush Dollar %--100% to 0% //Number of Donations--39 to 0 Northwestern: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--11 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--92% to 8% //Number of Donations--100 to 6 Washington U.: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--2 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--65% to 35% //Number of Donations--56 to 14 Cornell: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--29 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--97% to 3% //Number of Donations--142 to 7 Chicago: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--3 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--73% to 27% //Number of Donations--77 to 15 Rice: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--3 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--72% to 28% //Number of Donations--21 to 6 Notre Dame: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--3 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--75% to 25% //Number of Donations--18 to 8 Vanderbilt: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--2 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--64% to 36% //Number of Donations--76 to 26 Univ. of California: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--21 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--95% to 5% //Number of Donations--694 to 28 Michigan: Kerry/Bush Dollar Ratio--10 to 1 Kerry/Bush Dollar %--91% to 9% //Number of Donations--159 to 7 So you'd like to . . . know all about the constitutional/nuclear option By Tom Smith Here it is boys and girls: the alleged script for how it will go, or might go. May 17, 2005
But is it art By Tom Smith I really miss the NYC art scene. I think it's important that this sort of thing be federally supported. New Affirmative Action Study By Gail Heriot After the passage of Proposition 209, many argued that even highly qualified minority students had ceased to apply, because they felt "unwelcome" at the University of California. This argument was used to justify a massive increase in the UC's spending on outreach (as well as to show that Proposition 209 was a bad idea in the first place). If this new study is correct, it may have been a false alarm. The study finds that the number of highly qualified minority students who chose to send their SAT scores to the UC did not drop off following the adoption of color blind admissions policies. As Gilda Radner might have put it, "Never mind...." Cola comments By Tom Smith I liked "I'd like to teach the world to sing" better. Anyway, I'm diet Coke person myself. Now I can not drink Pepsi and feel like I'm making a political statement. Which reminds me, at my alma mater, Cornell, there is a tradition -- no honorary degrees, no commencement speakers. It just isn't done. Think about it: With all the graduation addresses you have heard, have you ever heard one that was memorable for something other than being bad? The commencement address at Yale Law School when I graduated was an offensive left wing rant. (I remember the studly Tony Kronman remained in his seat, refusing to join the standing ovation, even though he is hardly a conservative.) May 14, 2005
On This Day in Constitutional Non-History... By Gail Heriot The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was scheduled to get underway on May 14, 1787. But things did not get off to a good start. When the appointed day came around there was no quorum. Nor was there a quorum on May 15th, 16th, 17th or for many days thereafter. Some began to worry that the convention would be a bust as a similar meeting in Annapolis, Maryland had been the year before. I would tell you how the story ended, but I have a feeling that you know. May 13, 2005
Dartmouth Coup d'Etat By Gail Heriot Congratulations to renegade candidates Todd Zywicki and Peter Robinson for being elected to the Dartmouth Board of Trustees. Powerline and Inside HIgher Education have more. The first thing I'm going to do when I finish this post is try to find out what other colleges and universities have alumni-elected trustees. Perhaps we can make this a trend .... Serial killer Michael Ross executed in Connecticut By Tom Smith Ross was a graduate of Cornell University (my alma mater). The history of the investigation, convictions and appeals is particularly circuitous. I'm of two minds about the death penalty, but he certainly seems like a good candidate for it. Some interesting questions raised, including, should "sexual sadism" qualify as a mental illness that mitigates the penalty for murder? And, to what extent should the convicted murderer's desire to be executed to attone for his crimes be taken into account? Curiously, as Ross arguably become more sane on medication, his sense of guilt and desire to be executed increased. Also note, the one woman who survived one of Ross's attack put up a fight. May 12, 2005
Creative Lawyering By Gail Heriot When a death row serial killer says he is tired of the appeals process and wants to die, what does a good attorney acting in the public interest do? How about bring a lawsuit arguing that the execution should be enjoined because it constitutes state-assisted suicide and will encourage other prison inmates to kill themselves too? "Suicide contagion" they call it. "These prisoners will try to kill themselves in the hours, days and weeks following Michael's death,'' the suit states. Hmm. Silly Statute Struck Down By Gail Heriot Loyal readers with incredibly good memories may recall a post I did back on September 29, 2003 while the Davis Recall was pending. If not, I re-produce it: Karl Marx isn't one of my favorites, but he nailed one thing: HistoryAnyway, the statute was struck down in the California Superior Court today. I can't say that this was a great victory, since if the forces of truth and reason couldn't win this one, then they probably couldn't win anything. But it is a victory, and sometimes you have to take your victories where you find them. You know you're doing something right when . . . By Tom Smith Daily Kos is upset. Enjoy. Actually, I feel bad. In the interest of building bridges, pouring oil on the waters, and making sure we don't hurt anybody's feewings over saying hurtful things about the enslavement of half of Europe for half a century, which was, after all, inevitable, not that bad, necessary to make the world-historical omelette, better than Hitler at least, and maybe not the product of a first class mind, but certainly the product of a first class temperment (which is, after all, the thing, you know, temperment, that and the cut of your jib), I ofter this little morsel. Just a little Yalta memory. What! Will no one speak up for the sainted FDR?! I call the first witness! Besides, there was no way to know Stalin was that bad. May 11, 2005
You are not the lightning By Tom Smith But the problem is, the tracks released so far on the new Audioslave album are incredibly lame. Chris Cornell prating about how you have to "be yourself" -- that's original -- instead of telling his former lover "when you asked for light I set myself on fire." The latter, we know exactly what he is talking about, if we've ever been the bottom in a relationship, and a lot of us have. But "be yourself"? Who is this, a guidance counsellor? The first Audioslave album is, by rock and roll standards, something of an astonishment. Musically interesting, emotionally compelling, and addicting to listen to. A hard act to follow. And I fear they will not. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong about this. Some American crimes may not be named By Tom Smith What an extraordinary thing that Bush actually apologized for Yalta. Nothing can have shown more clearly that he is miles ahead of the dunderheads at the Times and the Post, who still think it is 1962. Some habits die hard, I guess. Yalta was a profound disgrace. It never would have happened but for FDR's illusions about Stalin. If FDR had made a deal with Hitler, I like to think we would have no problem seeing it as evil, but for mysterious reasons, the illusion of Uncle Joe refuses to die, or dies only very slowly. W just put another stake in that stubbornly animate corpse. Arthur Schlesinger may never figure it out, but in Latvia, Poland, Hungary and everywhere else in the former Soviet empire, they know what Bush acknowledged, that they were betrayed by what Eisenhower called a crusade for freedom. Their freedom was sold cheaply, far more cheaply than we sold the British, Italians or the French. And the French had a lot more to answer for than the Poles. Nothing could show more clearly than Bush's apology how far he has moved away from the realist camp of his father, Kissinger, Nixon, and the rest of them. It's hard to imagine Reagan making those remarks about Yalta. He may have thought it, but it would have been too radical for him to say. There is still apparently some need to apologize for the Evil Empire in aging Democratic circles, but nobody will hear it in Warsaw or Budapest. What a bracing thing it is to see new democracies forcing old democracies to speak the truth. This is Bush's evil empire moment. Yalta was necessary, Yalta was justified, Yalta was just realistic -- more filler for history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. St. Kristof the Ignorant speaks By Tom Smith This has got to be my least favorite canard. This is the claim, close to absurd on its face, that the Catholic Church is encouraging the spread of AIDS by not promoting the use of condoms in the Third World, especially Africa. Notice how innocent of anything like statistics Kristof's opinion piece is. It is called opinion, and boy, that's what it is. The spread of AIDS in Africa has a lot of causes, none of them pretty. Not having condoms is the least of their problems. For one, many southern Africans favor dry sex. You haven't heard that? Well, maybe you don't know a hell of a lot about African sexual practices, just like Kristof. I heard about it from an infectious diseases expert in Peru, who mentioned several reasons for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Catholics not being one of them. If Africans are averse even to natural or artifical lubrication, because they don't like the way it feels, just how are condoms going to save the day? Kristof makes it sound like all these happy innocents just want to have nice, sex with a condom, but darn it, Sister Chastity told them no condom, so boo hoo, I guess we will just have to risk AIDS. What rubbish. The huge cultural barriers against condoms in Africa don't need any help from the Church. It's just a convenient way to bash the Catholics. How sad for the New York Times that abortion doesn't cure AIDS. Oh, here's a fact. Catholicism is small, minority religion in the African countries where incidence of AIDS is highest. However, maybe the Vatican is somehow controlling behavior remotely. Here's another thing. All kinds of extra- marital or extra-stable relationship sex is common in Africa. Prostitution is rife. So is sex with children, "sugar daddy sex," promiscuity and various other practices that help spread AIDS. Lots of discussions of AIDS downplay this, but it is extremely important. Yes, it doesn't help that so many Africans choose not to use condoms, but the deeper problem is that so many choose to frequent prostitutes, keep multiple sexual partners, and infect their young mistresses. The idea that if the Church would just support condoms, this would all change, is ridiculous. What needs to change is behavior. Prostitution is a horrific industry in Africa that exploits women and children mercilessly. In many instances, it is simply sexual slavery. If Kristof wants to help the victims of the world, maybe he should say something about that, instead of criticizing the dedicated people who actually work to help the victims in these places, rather than getting paid top dollar to recycle tired lefty bromides. And yes, AIDS is also a disease of poverty in Africa. It has more to do with lack of jobs than lack of condoms. What African women need is a place to work besides a brothel, not a brothel with plenty of condoms. What African children need is schools, not truck drivers with plenty of rubbers. Kristof may think he is just indulging in a little innocent Catholic bashing, but what he is really doing is showing his typical American liberal ignorance about the plight of the people his moral betters -- I refer to the priests, nuns and lay people who are actually working in Africa -- are trying to help. Catholic charities are doing a lot more to fight AIDS in Africa than Kristof and the New York Times are. All he is saying in effect is, Let's make sexual exploitation more hygenic! The Congo isn't some Manhattan day academy, and theTimes is not helping by not telling lies about the Church. Some info. Catholic Relief Services in Africa. Another example. Fate of the academy By Tom Smith This at opinionjournal is a must read, if not the best written thing in the world. Some observations and quibbles. I simply do not believe that the University of California will, or is anywhere close to deciding to, provide sex change operations to "transgender" students on the California taxpayers' dime. I don't have any evidence for not believing it; I just don't believe it. California taxpayers would go insane. There may be some committee talking about it somewhere, but they may as well be talking about our ethical obligations to extra terrestrial visitors. I do think that the quotation from Marcuse is well taken. The enemy of many on the sexual left really is the family. Just because you're a paranoid right wing nut doesn't mean there really are not people who want to kick the legs out from under ordered liberty. Why they want to do so is a job for a psycharitrist. One hopes someday there will be a medication that works for this problem. I must say, it is the hard core anti-family people that give me pause about gay marriage. Every time I meet some nice gay couple that seems more married than, oh, say, some people in my parish I could name, I think, of course gay marriage should be legitimized. Just about then you read something that makes you realize there really is a campaign against the family (you may have to decipher a lot of jargon to realize that, however). Kimball is also correct that a lot of the zaniest left wing claptrap has been institutionalized in universities. Maybe Catholic universities will be like Irish monasteries of old, preserving civilization while the rest of the country slides into the PC Dark Ages. Or, maybe they'll just all become "universities in the faith tradition formerly known as Catholic, but please don't hate us!" One note of cautious optimism. Students seem increasingly sensible to me. (Granted, I am at a Catholic university, and at a law school known as conservative because we have a half dozen conservatives out of 40 or so faculty members.) The looney academic left must have difficulties gaining converts. It must be graying. When Smith or Wesleyean goes all PC weird, that creates opportunities for other institutions. The marketplace for ideas works slowly and imperfectly, but I think it still works. But who knows. Look at France. May 10, 2005
Do You Mean Extremely Moderate? By Gail Heriot My friend Roger Clegg posted an item on the NRO Corner yesterday: "The AP story today on the Bush judicial nominees being filibustered says that they are being targeted because of what Democrats call their “extreme views” on affirmative action, among other issues. I would submit that it is not possible to have an “extreme view” opposing affirmative action. The furthest to the right you can be is to want racial preferences in college admissions, employment, and contracting completely eliminated—but that is actually the mainstream position, if by mainstream we mean what most Americans favor. It is possible to be an extremist in the other direction—favoring, say, mandatory quotas for every classroom in every university in every state in the country—but not on the right." Roger has a point. How can opposition to racial preferences be out of the mainstream? In the two states that have had voter initiatives on the ballot prohibiting racial preferences, both passed by substantial margins--California (54.6%) and Washington State (58.22%). Moreover, Drs. Paul Snideman and Thomas Piazza, co-authors of The Scar of Race (which I recommend) and leading experts on public opinion, state that the racial preference agenda "is controversial precisely because most Americans do not disagree about it. Over the past decades, their opposition has been consistent, unyielding and from all corners of society. For example, a poll conducted by the Washington Post a couple of years ago showed that 94% of whites and 86% of African Americans agreed that hiring, promotions,and college admissions should be based "strictly on merit and qualifications other than race/ethnicity." Supporters of racial-based admissions policies argue that public opinion is malleable on this issue and that results vary according to the way the question is asked. The point about results varying is true: But they vary only to the extent that they go from bad news for supporters of race-based admissions policies to very, very, very bad news. For example, the Gallup poll released just a day before the Supreme Court's decision in the Michigan cases was touted by some as evidence of public support for race-base admissions, because a plurality (49%) expressed support for the abstract concept of "affirmative action." But respondents made a clear distinction between affirmative action and preferential standards. A full 69% said that college applicants "should be admitted solely on the basis of merit, even if that results in few minority students being admitted." Only 27% took the position that an applicant's race should be taken into consideration "even if that means admitting some minority students who otherwise would not be admitted." It is laughable to argue that Bush nominees are out of the maintream on this issue. May 09, 2005
Judging while Black By Tom Smith Democrats have invented a new kind of racial profiling. If you are judging while Black, you had better mind your p's and q's. Ditto for Hispanic jurists. See Hentoff. More on the Federal Estate Tax By Gail Heriot My friend and former student John Wallner is unimpressed with Irwin Stelzer's efforts to refute the arguments against the Federal Estate Tax: "...Irwin Stelzer [stated]: '* Inheritance taxes force the sale of small businesses or farms. No. Any such entity surely has borrowing power in excess of the amounts required to meet the taxman's demands, and can therefore raise any needed cash. Besides, a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Thomas Dunn and Douglas Holtz-Eakin (the latter is now director of the Congressional Budget Office) suggests that an entrepreneur's "propensity to become self-employed" is affected far more by the human capital he or she inherits than by inherited financial assets. So inheritors of businesses, and of that "self-employed propensity," are not likely to sell out and join the ranks of wage earners merely because the value of the enterprise they inherit is taxed.' This may be a theoretical issue to Mr. Stelzer, but it is not for me. The margins on agriculture and cattle (I am a cattleman) are very small -- having to get a huge loan to continue owning the family farm will kill that farm for the low-end producers (which family farms normally are.) Larger farms are corporations, and do not have this problem. Why does Mr. Stelzer not tell us why family owned farms should be heavily (and I believe unfairly) taxed every generation, but not their largest competitors (corporate farms)? A one-sentence "No" is hardly an argument. Also, heavy leverage is common in agriculture, and small farms are already heavily in debt. It is not the case that 'Any such entity surely has borrowing power in excess of the amounts required to meet the taxman's demands.' He offers no evidence for this claim, except to assure us 'surely'. I find it unlikely. " John certainly has a point that estate taxes will sometimes be enough to put businesses over the edge and Stelzer is certainly wrong to suggest that any business "surely" has the borrowing power it needs to get past the tax man. Some won't. But I'm not sure that's enough to cause me to want to abolish the tax. All taxes have the capability of putting low-margin enterprises out of business--certainly property taxes and sales taxes do, but sometimes even income taxes do. You can be like my fellow RCer Tom and talk about abolishing all sorts of taxes, but if we start with the premise that there are going to be taxes, then the question is not whether the estate tax will drive some low-margin enterprises out of business, but whether the estate tax is more painful or less painful method of taxation than the alternatives. In general, I would guess it to be less painful (and if it isn't it less painful, I would guess that it can be made less painful by employing methods like those suggested by my fellow RCer Mike). The nice thing about an estate tax is that usually the guy who had been enjoying the wealth is too dead to miss it and his heirs have not yet put themselves in a position where they just can't afford to part with any of it. I certainly don't advocate onerous taxes on estates, but modest ones might be a good idea. ((As for corporate farms vs. family farms, aren't both subject to estate tax in the sense that if Grandpa owned stock in a corporate farm, that stock is subject to estate tax upon his death and it may be sold to pay the tax? The heirs who thought that they were going to be stockholders of a corporate farm may thus find that they are not. Somebody else now owns the stock. In that respect at least, the situation is like that of the family farm. If the farm, is sold to pay the tax, the heirs who expected to own the farm find that somebody else does instead.)) Remember . . . By Tom Smith The late 'seventies/early 'eighties. There's a lot I miss about being in my twenties, but being so dumb is not one of them. FCC, Hollywood take hit By Tom Smith The good ol' DC Circuit just gave it to Hollywood and the FCC on the chin, and I'm glad. I don't have a legal opinion on the matter. I haven't read any ad law opinions lately, something to be avoided if possible. But as a matter of politics, anything that erodes Hollywood's cultural monopoly has to be a good thing. Let a thousand flowers bloom; not all of them can be (to mix metaphors) obnoxious, prating, overpaid termites determined to chew at the foundations of Civilization. "Omelette" and "omelet" are both okay, "omlette" isn't By Tom Smith The above from RC'er Gail Heriot. All I can say is, I'll try to do better. On the hopeful side, pretty soon I'll probably forget how to say omelette and start saying "egg thingy." On the food and wine front, last night I prepared dinner for my lovey wife Jeanne for mother's day, and I must say it was a tasty success. I used a couple of recipies from the big, new Gourmet cookbook which is now out, and which has to be one of the biggest collections of great recipies ever to appear in print. Over 1000 of them, which passed one hurdle to get into Gourmet magazine in the first place, and another to get included in this "best of." I made sauteed lamb chops with a sauce of butter, cream, lemon juice, and onions, garnished with fried capers and italian parsley, and an endive, red onion and orange salad. It came out perfectly, and I served it with a very nice Merlot, which is a swell wine, Sideways notwithstanding. And I did it all without getting stressed out. OK, that last part is a lie, but if children would learn to obey their fathers instantly and with enthusiasm, there would have been no problem. The entertainment for the evening was Sideways from Netflix, after kids were in bed. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, even though I don't see why there should have been so much excitement over the movie. Both the male characters, Miles and Jack, are quite pathetic. I was relieved it managed to have a happy ending, or at least a hopeful one. Apparently as a result of this movie, merlot sales have plunged, as Miles, the wine loving, as yet unpublished novelist in the movie, loathes merlot. There is nothing wrong with merlot. I like merlot. It may be more accessible than some wines, but so what. I prefer a classic cab, but really, it's just something to drink, for heaven's sake. One of the things you see in the movie is people turning to wine (and in Jack's case, sex) to find something that is not in their lives. Extremely sad stuff. Make sure your glass is filled up with a great merlot. May 08, 2005
Nice horse By Tom Smith There was another horse named "Russians love their children too," and it just gave up and let the other horses win because iy didn't want to make them mad. Die death tax, die, die, die By Tom Smith I hate the death tax. But for the death tax I might be a gentleman rancher in Idaho. At least, the big ranch(es) on my mother's side of the family ended up being sold to pay inheritance taxes. They probably would have failed anyway, but I still hate the death tax. Yes, I know, that particular problem has been fixed for farms and ranches, after however many hundred or thousand farms and ranches were forced to be sold to pay taxes. Now, if you spend enough on lawyers, you can probably figure out a way to pass your business on to your kids. It's like money spent on locks and security guards. If you don't spend the money, somebody will steal you blind. But forget me. Support of the death tax is just creeping egalitarianism. It's just the clinging remainders of the view that if you didn't earn something yourself, somehow, the government should take it and give it someone who deserves it even less. This is a very silly view. What justifies a transfer of wealth is that someone wants me to have it, and so do I. A gift given and accepted is every bit as much a free transaction as a contract. You could say that the state should be able to tax every transaction, which they are happy to do, but there's no special justification for it. Other than that it can, so it does. One could say taxing bequests is somehow more efficient than taxing earned income, and maybe it is. But in this tough, old world, the real battle is about somehow getting the state to take less from us. Taxes are too high. Too much gets taken to be redistributed to achieve political ends. If getting rid of the death tax locks one drawer in the pantry that the morbidly obese government can't get its hands on, then lock it, I say. And if it slams shut on its pudgy little fingers, so much the better. Here's the story of the death tax. John makes some money in his business and wants to leave it to his kids so they can have an easier life than he had, which he remembers largely as working his butt off all the time. Ah, but do his children really deserve it? Did they earn it? Oh, well, maybe not. So, let's take half of that money, then the government can use it to build a Museum on the History of Wool and pave a road to a donor's house and pay social security to some guy who doesn't need it. Let's take that money from the people whom the guy who earned it wanted to give it to, and it give it to people who really don't deserve it. Oh yes, and the guy who earned it already paid a third to a half of what he earned to the government anyway. It's not double taxation, it's another sort of thing that allows the government to take more of what the guy who earned it earned. It only looks like double taxation, in the sense that it is economically indistinguishable from double taxation. If you are willing to pay three hundred bucks an hour, you can get your tax lawyer to explain it to you. I worked across Pennsylvania Avenue from the IRS for a few years, and I would walk past it on the way to the Mall. I would see that epigram of Holmes, I think, up above the pillar: Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. And I would wonder, so where's the civilized society? And, society seems to be getting less civilized, yet taxes are going up. What gives? So I say get rid of the death tax, and probably a lot of other taxes besides. My guess is, things would get more civilized, not less. AudioSlave does Havana By Tom Smith And this one goes out to the Supreme Leader . . . When you wanted me I came to you And when you wanted someone else I withdrew And when you asked for light I set myself on fire And if I go far away I know you'll find another slave . . . . . . Now I'm free from what you want! Now I'm free from what you are! No wonder they were cheering. Those darn Communists By Tom Smith In this piece What Gulags? the WSJ explains how harmful it is not to see the past for what it was. Russians nostaligic for the Soviet Union are not the only culprits. Plenty of American academics do their part to keep the vaults of the past locked and the evil spirits unexorcised. If things had gone differently at Moscow and Stalingrad, and Hitler had won the war well enough to secure a separate peace for Fortress Europe, and his kingdom of night lasted 50 years or so, you can bet there would be plenty of American academics who would say, what Jews? and Naziism was never really practiced, and you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs. Great Literature: "To Be or Not To Be: That is the ... Chimpanzee..." By Gail Heriot Grading student essays is very time consuming. Chimpanzee. And frequently it’s painful. Mandrill. But it’s an important part of the job of a law professor. Bonobo. And I can’t help feeling that when my colleagues give multiple choice only exams that they are not doing an important part of their jobs. Siamang. But perhaps relief is on the way. Gibbon. Or perhaps not. Baboon. Associated Press reports that some University of Missouri sociology professor is trying to come up with a computer program that will grade his students’ essays automatically. Macaque. Just scan the essay and it’s graded. Gorilla. So even the most time-pressed professor will have the time. Orangutan. In fairness, I should point out that so far the professor is using this software only for drafts. Marmoset. But a similar technology is already being used to grade the essay portion of the GMAT. Langur. And a half million K-12 students are already getting their essays graded by a yet another computer technology. Tamarin. It’s a growth industry. Bushbaby. The up-side of the technologies is that they are quick, they don't miss anything that they are programmed to see, and they are consistent. Vervet. The more obvious down-side is that they are formulaic and easy to game. Grivet. Indeed, a few years back, one clever "troublemaker" simply scattered the word “chimpanzee” throughout his text and found the grading software he was working with would give him a higher score. Loris. Maybe I'll be proven a fool some day, but I'm not optimistic about the likelihood that these problems can be overcome. Lemur. In the meantime, however, I'm doing what I can to improve my own writing. Potto. May 07, 2005
Now that the House Has Voted to Eliminate the Federal Estate Tax Permanently... By Gail Heriot I've always been slightly unnerved by what seems to be the near uniformity of opinion among my fellow conservatives in opposition to the federal estate tax. The passion with which they make their case never seems in any way proportional to the strength of their argument. Think tanks denizens are frequently the worst offenders--and it's easy, though just a bit troubling, to see why. Those institutions depend on contributions from wealthy and usually elderly individuals for whom the estate tax is a significant issue. And if an issue, particularly a financial issue, is important to an institution's donors, it will be important to the institution--at least if the institution wants to grow and prosper. I was pleased therefore to see Irwin Stelzer of the Hudson Institute writing in the Weekly Standard with a more skeptical view. Among other things, he attempts to meet some of the more common arguments against the tax: "* Surviving spouses will suffer. No. Inheritance taxes are not levied on spousal transfers--quite right, since we now recognize that the accumulated wealth of husband and wife is due to the efforts of both. I suppose it's getting to be a little late to be making arguments on this issue. Stelzer predicts that the Senate will follow the House lead and vote to make the elimination of the federal estate tax permanent. And like me, he is not sure if that's a bad thing. "But," he concludes, "the burden will be on the inheritance-tax repealers to decide which taxes they will raise to make up for the lost revenue--$1 trillion over 10 years. Unless, of course, they favor a still-larger deficit." Kingdom of Whatever By Tom Smith Well, almost the entire brood, including my lovely wife Jeanne, and one friend, saw the Crusader movie Kingdom of Heaven yesterday. 18 month old Mark stayed with his nanny. My 13 year old loved the movie. I think he tends to see these movies as "plot plot plot BATTLE! BATTLE! plot plot plot," so this movie had enough to keep his interest. I however was a little disappointed. Not hugely. Just a little. On a scale where Ridley Scott's previous battle epic Gladiator would get an A or A-, Kingdom of Heaven gets only a B. The reason is simple. The movie has a very weak script, which is to say, it just does not have an interesting story to tell. To make a movie like this work, you need a strong story that gives vivid characters credible motivations. Gladiator ("My name is Gladiator, and I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next!") is motivated first by the desire to be a good general and servant to wise Emperor Marcus, and then by the quite understandable passion to revenge his horribly murdered family. The praetorians crucified his lovely wife and children, for heaven's sake. That would irritate anyone. But he gets captured by slavers, ends up in the ring and has to fight his way up to where he has a shot at the disgusting perv emperor Maximus, whose motives are also quite clear. He wants absolute power, popular adulation and to get it on with his sister. Yukky, but it makes for a good villain. In contrast, the characters in Kingdom are opaque. Orlando Bloom seems to think crusading will ease the pains of his suicide wife in hell, but he seems to forget her quickly enough when he lays his eyes upon the hot future Queen of Jerusalem. He comes across as a confused, drifting sort of hero. Realistic perhaps, but not good movie material. The villains similarly make no sense. Guy de whathisname, husband of hot sister of the Leper King Baldwin, wants to start a war with the Sarecens, but why? It is obvious he cannot win. Evil as he is, does he think God will not let him lose? It is completely obscure. His greasy henchman, Raymond de wherever, actually has a line where he says something like, "I'm a villain, that's just what I do," and indeed, that's about all the sense it makes. He's off to provoke war, kill Salladin's sister, and generally be awful because, well, that's just the sort of chap he is. Villains need motives too. Actually, their motives may be the most important of all. In a particularly nice example, in the pretty darn good western Tombstone, Wyatt Erp asks Doc Holiday what motivates the almost unbelievably nasty Ringo (I think it's Ringo). Doc says "Revenge." Wyatt says "Revenge? Revenge for what?" "For bein' born," says Doc, and you think you know exactly what he means, and why that makes Ringo an especially depraved sort of villain. The wickedness of the Crusader villains, you're supposed to take on faith, I guess. (Speaking of motives, of Wyatt's motives, Doc says "It's not revenge he's after. It's a reckoning." A great line, perfectly delivered, and all the better for its utter opacity.) Is Kingdom of Heaven offensive PC tripe? I did not take it that way, but a good case could be made that it is. Orlando Bloom (Baron Balin or whatever his name is) has the chance to save Jerusalem, get the hot Queen, with whom he has sort of fallen in love, maybe, or at least is fond of, get rid of the villains, and save the people from war. We know what W would have done. But no, doing that would smack to much of preemptive war, I guess. Baron B cannot, and keep his soul pure, even though it is far from clear what would be morally objectionable in this course of action, and seems a bit finicky for a guy who has thrown a priest in furnace and is busy boinking the married princess, even if her husband is a bad guy. (In a memorably stupid line, princess hotness says to Orlando, immediately before throwing herself at him, that "In the East, there is nothing between people but light." What the heck does that mean? Something like "forget it, it's Chinatown"? or "Dude, you can't let all this atmosphere go to waste"?) If Baldwin wants to name Orlando as heir, what is wrong with that? If Raymond and Guy end up getting the chop because they won't acknowledge him, isn't that their own doing? It's not explained; we just have to assume it was too dirty for Orlando. Just like defending against terrorism is wrong if it means you might have to kill anybody. Guy and Raymond head off to war, it being perfectly clear they will die in the desert, as they promptly do, and it's on to the seige of Jerusalem. The seige scenes are technically impressive, but there is no suspense, since you know the Crusader defenders are just fighting for good terms of surrender. This they get, and everyone gets to march out of Jerusalem under the banner of honorable surrender. It's hard not to see this as a metaphor for how Hollywood sees US foreign policy. Everything would be fine if we would just not provoke the Mohammedans, but for inexplicable reasons, the bad guys in power have to provoke them. At that point, the most that can be hoped for is honorable surrender to the powers of the non-West, who after all have the cooler clothes, better climate, and vastly superior interior decorators. But there is honor in surrender, because it's all about saving the people. It's not so bad not being King and Queen; you get to ride off into the horizon, as if on a camping trip. So, yes, I'm afraid the movie, which seems silly at first viewing does upon reflection resolve into a PC tale that is deeply stupid. But perhaps not intentionally so. It comes across as not really being aware of how dumb it is, which is more than you can say for a lot of Hollywood products, which seem intelligently designed to gnaw at the foundations of civilization. The movie also seems to view Islam as a more benign religion than Christianity, which certainly seems an odd historical judgment to make. The vague, questing spirituality of Orlando Bloom and Liam Neesom seem OK, but the Church comes across as very much the realm of evil doers. Orlando tells a paunchy, cynical, sneering Bishop "you've taught me a lot about religion." I suppose we should be grateful there was no subplot about the right to choose, like maybe a deformed baby that really had to be exposed on a hillside for the good of everyone involved. In defense of the movie, however, it's sheer dunderheadedness becomes clear only upon reflection. You can definitely watch it for the battles and the locations. It is almost up to the Gladiator standard on that score. I could have done with more close quarter combat of the Gladiator kind, where one could see how the fight choreographers conceived of medieval fighting styles, about which a lot has been learned in the last 20 years or so. You can see a bit of that, and it is pretty good, with fights showing how weapons are versatile. If you know a bit about weaponry, you can see a nice variety of weapons, including swords, maces, axes, war hammers and crossbows. The Muslims seem to favor round shields, swords and spears, and much less in the way of hammers, axes, and maces. I don't know whether that is accurate or not. Siege artillery is given a prominent role in the big battle, which I suspect is realistic. However, I wonder if the trebuchets would really be capable of achieving the low angle, high velocity shots shown in the movie. Cool looking, but I think the physics is dubious. My advice is, if you like big epic battle scenes, the movie is worth watching. Just don't expect a particularly good story inbetween the battles. If you are not battle scene person, you might enjoy the costumes, which are extremely well done. But otherwise this is a missable movie. It's too bad, because any sensible script, which was inhabited by recognizable humans, would have made the movie so much better. Remember the Alamo: It was all about slavery By Tom Smith Well, this is annoying. The kid's channel Nickelodeon is running this little "educational" spot about the Battle of the Alamo. You know, the one where a few hundred Texans fought Santa Ana's army, and ended up dying to the last man. I get the feeling it means something to Texans. Personally, I enjoyed the movie. Well, now I know different! According to the cartoon channel Nickelodeon, in fact, it was all about Texans fighting to preserve slavery, against those "Mexican authorities" who wanted to end it! The Mexicans were liberators, not conquerors. Not the "shrine of Texas liberty" as the Alamo website says, but just the holdout of a bunch of slavers fighting off Mexican liberators! What a relief Nickelodeon is there to put all those little Texans straight. There must be some Texans who read this blog, or people who read this blog who know Texans. I would link to the little spot if I could, but I can't find any links to it. Tivo Nickelodeon for a few hours on a Saturday morning, or maybe weekday too, and it will show up. Nickelodeon really deserves to get some grief for this one. There are some pretty influential Texans around, I believe. I'm sure slavery was part of the story. But so was not wanting to be under the thumb of a none too benign Mexican regime, I would be willing to bet. I'd say the last 150 years or so has borne out the judgment of those who figured they'd rather have their kids grow up in the USA. On a slightly related subject, California is no better. At the Catholic Academy where we send our kids to school, they use what I believe is the standard curriculum used in the public schools for California history. I asked my son what he had learned about the missions of California and he replied without hesitating that "they were concentration camps for Indians." This is not what Catholic schools should be teaching kids about the missions of California. I'm sure it was not all sweetness and light; but it certainly wasn't genocide either. We have a hall and a statue named after Father Serra here at USD. I think we here at USD take some pride in the Spanish Mission heritage of this region. We're across the street, or freeway more precisely, from the Alcala mission, which makes a pretty darn picturesque view. Every building on campus is built in the Spanish Mission style. I really don't want my kids to look at them and think, oh, there's the concentration camp. I'm sure whatever the California state authorities have come up with doesn't say precisely that. But kids are geniuses at cutting to the essential message. They know what they are being taught. The Alamo: Texans fighting for slavery. California Missions: concentration camps. May 06, 2005
Attractive women for freedom By Tom Smith I don't really understand this blog trend of posting digital pictures of attractive women at pro-democracy demonstrations. But anyway, here's the latest from Lebanon. I do think there is some kind of sociological indicator at work. Or maybe it's just another excuse to post pictures of women on the internet. Or maybe there's some kind of evolutionary psych explanation. In any event, I don't think it's good news for all the democracy will never work in whatever hell you happen to be talking about nay sayers. Sometimes I wonder, could the 21st century be as good as the 20th was bad? Could the era of the unbelievably stupid and evil (Let's get rid of property! Let's kill all the Jews/landowners/people who can read/people not as black as we are/people who actually know how to farm) but believed-by-intellectuals ideologies, actually be coming to an end? If that's what beauties going to demonstrations for freedom means, then post away. Conservative Postmodernists By Tom Smith This is interesting, and I think there's some truth in it. Some conservatives, especially religious conservatives, take post modern tacks. Mostly, I suspect, for pragmatic reasons. May 05, 2005
Law professors and students need a new drug, and other news By Tom I forgot the rest We need this and we need it now. Hurry up, scientists. I sounds even better than, than, that coffee drug thing. It's on the tip of my tongue. And in the meantime, keep eating those berries. Loneliness is worse than you thought. Just add that to global warming as something to brood about in your terrible moments of terrible loneliness. You should have skipped the potato chips, fatso. How to build a dream team, according to the mathematicians. Maybe they could put one in a Prius. Weird little cameras for very tiny subjects By Tom Smith Courtesy of weird physics (evanescent light waves? Who knew.) we can now take pictures of very tiny objects, very useful for the upcoming nanotech calender. And now, digital cameras and lasers will be able to make detailed 3D maps of cities in a matter of hours . . . Can somebody say Instalink? No? I don't know why I bother with this stuff . . . God wills it (or not) By Tom Smith Arguing world history, especially if it bears significantly on the history of the Jews, with Maimon is a job for someone braver than I, or at least better read. I have ordered a couple of books on the Crusades recommended by loyal readers and, assuming I actually read them, I will be far, far better informed than I am now. Having said all that, I will just express some doubts as to whether it is really all that clear that the Crusades did not contribute to the security of Europe at a time when the Mohameddans, if I may use that quaint term, were doing a credible job of conquering the world. Maimon suggests the Crusades actually weakened Byzantium and made it more vulnerable to the Ottoman Turks. I am not even close to having an informed opinion on this. I am just at the crude level of wondering whether, with an expansive Islam on the march in the 11th century, the establishment of Christian kingdoms in the Near East did not act as an obstacle and distraction to Islamic expansion. It is interesting that some of the debate might turn on how one defines "Crusades." The old Catholic Encyclopedia wants to define all wars against Muslim "invaders" as Crusades or Crusade-like. Under that definition, the expulsion of the Moors from Spain would count as a Crusade. While sometimes the behavior of the Spanish and French makes one wonder, I think I am glad the Spaniards did that. Though, it may well not have been good for the Jews, what with the Inquisition and all. If you took all European resistance to the expansion of Muslim empire or empires into Europe, or attacks that had that effects, as part of Crusades broadly defined, it's hard for me at least to see how there ever would have been a Europe without such wars. I may well be missing some important dynamic in my simple minded way of looking at it, however. Certainly it would be impossible to justify the Sack of Jerusalem, which stands out as a particularly horrible event, in terms of early medieval geopolitics, except as an exercise in speculation. I do not think it is fair to compare the Crusades or any of the other religiously-inspired sanguinary episodes in European history to Communism. For one thing, the scale of bloodshed is orders of magnitude different. In a bad month, Stalin killed more people I should think, than in any of the religious wars one has heard of. For another, the Crusaders were not trying to enslave the world to a particularly odious ideology, though this is no doubt what PC historians would have us believe, not just about the Crusades but about the sale of Coca-Cola. Christianity has its critics, and it would be hard to argue it has done well by the Jews, but at least in my world view, I don't see how everything that is valuable in European civilization could or would have evolved without it. In a world were there were not even organized states as we know them, I am not sure how one would defend a nascent European civilization, except by inspiring a counter religious fanaticism. Yes, this is eggs and omlettes. But it is not as if anyone could draft a secular army and send it to some defensible lines in Turkey somewhere. How this argument would come out depends on historical knowledge I certainly don't have. At present, I am just not convinced that the Crusades, at least broadly defined, did not play a role in defending Europe against Mohammedan invasion. And I am also going to be careful about what I believe from contemporary historians (including Catholic ones) who, for mysterious reasons of their own, are usually on the other side from me on every other issue, such as whether defeating Communism was a good idea. May 04, 2005
Interesting polygamy story By Tom Smith Here and here. You would think there would be lots of good constitutional issues here. My sources in Utah say the troop leader, or whatever they call the FLDS leader, has a very good lawyer . . . Maybe in America, you can do whatever you want, if your lawyer is good enough. Jon Stewart the Phenom By Tom Smith Very interesting article on Jon Stewart, comedian and media darling. I think there's a deep (or deep-ish) relationship between irony and the left. I think what happens with a lot of people is that they get to their thirties or forties, get kids, find some modicum of success in something, and then realize all that stands between them and the dark, old void is a pretty fragile civilization. Before that, you still subconsciously think someone out there is playing parent, and that if things get too far out of hand, he or she will step in, and make everyone behave. It's hard to be really ironic when you realize that's not the case. That often enough, all that stands between the nutcase terrorists and the White House is some former rugby player who's in no mood to let them get away with it. I can't remember that guy's name. Jon Stewart should come up with some good jokes about him. Crusade on By Tom Smith I'm obviously not going to defend Crusader thugs murdering Jews or Crusader opportunists crusading for loot. But just as the movement of Europeans across North America was about a lot more than murdering Indians, so the Crusades were about a lot more than killing Jews and other innocents. Here's an excerpt from a somewhat dated, but still useful semi-official account from the old Catholic Encyclopedia (for links go to original; the links in the excerpt below don't work) and some links following to sources for those who want to follow up on their own. The history of the Crusades is . . . intimately connected with that of the popes and the Church. These Holy Wars were essentially a papal enterprise. The idea of quelling all dissensions among Christians, of uniting them under the same standard and sending them forth against the Mohammedans, was conceived in the eleventh century, that is to say, at a time when there were as yet no organized states in Europe, and when the pope was the only potentate in a position to know and understand the common interests of Christendom. At this time the Turks threatened to invade Europe, and the Byzantine Empire seemed unable to withstand the enemies by whom it was surrounded. Urban II then took advantage of the veneration in which the holy places were held by the Christians of the West and entreated the latter to direct their combined forces against the Mohammedans and, by a bold attack, check their progress. The result of this effort was the establishment of the Christian states in Syria. While the authority of the popes remained undisputed in Europe, they were in a position to furnish these Christian colonies the help they required; but when this authority was shaken by dissensions between the priesthood and the empire, the crusading army lost the unity of command so essential to success. The maritime powers of Italy, whose assistance was indispensable to the Christian armies, thought only of using the Crusades for political and economic ends. Other princes, first the Hohenstaufen and afterwards Charles of Anjou, followed this precedent, the crusade of 1204 being the first open rebellion against the pontifical will. Finally, when, at the close of the Middle Ages, all idea of the Christian monarchy had been definitively cast aside, when state policy was the sole influence that actuated the Powers of Europe, the crusade seemed a respectable but troublesome survival. In the fifteenth century Europe permitted the Turks to seize Constantinople, and princes were far less concerned about their departure for the East than about finding a way out of the fulfilment of their vow as crusaders without losing the good opinion of the public. Thereafter all attempts at a crusade partook of the nature of political schemes. Notwithstanding their final overthrow, the Crusades hold a very important place in the history of the world. Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; they afforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the wars between Christian princes, while the temporal and spiritual privileges which they conferred upon crusaders virtually made the latter their subjects. At the same time this was the principal reason why so many civil rulers refused to join the Crusades. It must be said that the advantages thus acquired by the popes were for the common safety of Christendom. From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides, the Crusades brought about results of which the popes had never dreamed, and which were perhaps the most, important of all. They re-established traffic between the East and West, which, after having been suspended for several centuries, was then resumed with even greater energy; they were the means of bringing from the depths of their respective provinces and introducing into the most civilized Asiatic countries Western knights, to whom a new world was thus revealed, and who returned to their native land filled with novel ideas; they were instrumental in extending the commerce of the Indies, of which the Italian cities long held the monopoly, and the products of which transformed the material life of the West. Moreover, as early as the end of the twelfth century, the development of general culture in the West was the direct result of these Holy Wars. Finally, it is with the Crusades that we must couple the origin of the geographical explorations made by Marco Polo and Orderic of Pordenone, the Italians who brought to Europe the knowledge of continental Asia and China. At a still later date, it was the spirit of the true crusader that animated Christopher Columbus when he undertook his perilous voyage to the then unknown America, and Vasco de Gama when he set out in quest of India. If, indeed, the Christian civilization of Europe has become universal culture, in the highest sense, the glory redounds, in no small measure, to the Crusades.This is obviously written in an old-fashioned, triumphalist vein, which we would all now reject. While I am not erudite enough to have an informed opinion, I am, however, at least doubtful that without papal leadership and an offensive defense against the "Mohammedans," there would have been a West or a Europe. World history may well have gone a different way, and we might still be living in a world "lit only by fire." I'm not sure how you judge centuries worth of history, but I'm sure you have to look at more than its crimes. More sources on the crusades here, and here. |
