Just Posted on Vanity Fair

If the Supremes had made the decision Mr Rollins wanted, it means (as Ilya Somin points out) that *unions* would have been banned from making political contributions, and (as Matt Welch points out) *nonprofit* corporations would have been banned from making political statements.

Would Mr Rollins have approved if MoveOn.org’s Campaign to Defend America had been blocked by George W. Bush’s Federal Elections Commission from broadcasting a documentary called “McCain: The Movie” during the 2008 election?

Because that's exactly what the FCC tried to do with Citizens United, and apparently he supports that decision.

Or does he only want free speech rights for those who agree with him? Is he a fool or a hypocrite?

[Update:] I apologize for calling Mr Rollins a fool or a hypocrite; I do think his *opinion* is either foolish or unjust. If organized groups are banned from politics then only individuals will be able to make political statements and contributions -- and that gives a big advantage to rich individuals. It's easier and simpler to get $1 million from one donor than to get $1000 from a thousand or $10 from ten thousand. Organized groups like PACs and unions help coordinate the contributions of the middle- and working-classes so they can help balance those of the rich. And I repeat that if we allow this for progressive organizations it is unfair to deny equal rights to reactionary ones.

Kenesaw Mountain Chicken Droppings

To the tune of "Kenesaw Mountain Landis" by Jonathan Coulton:

Kenesaw Mountain Landis was a scumbag and a bigot
and shouldn't even be immortalized in funny songs;
he should be mocked and ridiculed forever
for keeping baseball segregated for so long . . .

Not to mention all the First Amendment vi-o-lations
at the trials of dissidents that he presided at;
while I love Jonathan Coulton I hate Kenesaw Landis
(although he had a cool name)
and that is all that I have to say about that!

Too Skinny Even For Me

I enjoy Ralph Lauren's fashion sense -- it reminds me of the Reagan era -- you know, "morning in America" -- but this time I'm on the other side, along with Xeni, Cory Doctorow, Instapundit, Popehat, and the American Bar Association:

"Those who protested the war in Vietnam cite our losing it as proof they were right. I cite the enemy’s since adopting most of our core values as evidence that we were right to fight for them at the time." -----John T. Reed

Hear, Hear

"The party's over. Neither I nor anyone else in government has a right to anything you earn or own. And you have no right to anything that I or anyone else earns or owns.

"It's okay to love your neighbor, but I have no right to force you to take care of his medical needs ... or support him money if he loses his job ... or hire him at a wage that I deem to be fair ... or help him financially, or otherwise, in any other way.

"From octomoms in California to welfare bums in Massachusetts ... from environmen-talists in Oregon to heroine addicts in New York City ... I have no right to force you to accommodate their desires just because they call them needs. And by no stretch of the imagination are anyone's "needs" rights. The only rights an individual possesses are those given to him by God."

"Reporters tend to treat public policy issues with all the depth of, well, movie directors: See problem. Talk about problem. WHY ISN'T PROBLEM BEING FIXED!" -----Matt Welch, "Ink-Stained Retch"

Never Again

"The fact that the Holocaust Museum
needs armed guards
is why we need a Holocaust Museum." -----James Lileks

R.I.P., E.G.G.

Andrew Rilstone puts it better than I ever could. One life, furnished in early Gygax.

Prescriptions for Disaster

"I think getting doctors on a salary is the very first solution..."

The original rationale for HMOs was that the insurance company would be paid a fixed amount per patient per month (although this might be modified by the patient's pre-existing medical conditions) and would be required to provide whatever medical care was necessary; therefore, they would have an incentive to do things the most economical way, i.e. through preventive medicine whenever possible.

That sounded great to me, and it still sounds like a good goal.

Unfortunately, as Adam Smith predicted (when talking about education), instead this gave an incentive for insurers to provide as little care as possible, by making the quality as low as possible, and making it as difficult as possible to obtain it.

In Bryan Caplan's class on microeconomics, he explained the concept of "moral hazard" to us, with plenty of amusing examples. I suggest this as another one.

So, how do we actually accomplish the original goal?

Second-Best News All Day

My friend and mentor Bryan Caplan -- the guy responsible for my switching from political theory and English literature to economics, and for going to George Mason University -- thus forcing me into courses in which I actually have to learn something during the semester! -- has asked to blog one of my answers to one of his exams.

I'm pretty thrilled. It kind of makes up for the crapsack April I had (with severe downward trends in school, finances, health, and a friendship).

Placeholder Post

David Friedman (and others) talk about the Stupid Party and the Evil Party.

I believe it was H. L. Mencken who said "Each party claims the other is unfit to rule, and they're both right."

Here's a YouTube video from one party about the other.

"How I Became A Libertarian" by Michael Shermer

I'm a big fan of skepticism and skeptics, and my heart breaks and bleeds when I see how many of them are gullible followers of left-wing pseudoeconomics. One of the brightest lights of skepticism is Michael Shermer, who has written a blog post called "How I Became a Libertarian."

PCer Than Thou

I just posted this on Ezra Levant's blog:

Rebekah wrote: "I am in a debate with someone at the moment who says that freedom of speech is a civil right, and as such we have no right to judge other cultures or regimes that deny freedom of speech. Could I ask, how would you answer this?"

Oh, I love debating against leftists. It's so much fun to see their eyes pop out when their own Politically Correct slogans are used against them!

I would use two arguments. The first is: "I believe in freedom of speech because I believe in equality. If there is no freedom of speech, that means that some people can say what they want, and some views get expressed, but other people -- minorities and the oppressed -- and other views get suppressed. Don't you believe in equal rights for everyone in society?"

If the PC leftist actually admits that he thinks "respecting other cultures" is more important than equal rights, my other argument would be: "Okay, I won't argue against that position. Instead, I'll just say that according to your own statment it's fine for Americans or Canadians or other Europeans to suppress arguments for pacifism, atheism, homosexuality, feminism, or anything else because those are against the values of Eurocentric culture."

Of course if you happen to know the particular Politically Correct causes that he supports, you should use them as examples.

As far as I can see, the only argument against that would be for the leftist to claim that Islamofascist values are actually *better* than our cultural values. If he does, you can attack him for being "judgemental" and "inegalitarian" and also debate him on the merits of our values versus his.

Old Skool Gamin'

I'm getting back to my roots, to my ancestral culture, to my people's ancient heritage.

Bitter Sweet

I'm impressed, and not in a good way, with the new "game" from Twix (the candy bar). They actually managed to get me to agree with the Politically Correct femocrats at safercampus.org.

I don't know if you're aware that this ad campaign has provoked a very negative reaction among people; one website described it as an "interactive date-rape tutorial."

I'm a man, and I'm not Politically Correct, and even I dislike the fact that your company apparently thinks the best alternative to choose, at the end of the game, is to lie to the woman.

A relationship based upon a Big Lie is going to fail, and at least one person will be unhappy with it. Or, if you're saying that's okay because it's just a one-night stand and the guy will have sex, then I'm offended as a Christian -- someone who believes that sex outside of marriage is a bad idea...like eating too much candy.

Congratulations, though, on an ad campaign that actually makes me agree with Poltiically Correct femocrats about something! I'm putting this on my blog! (Oh, yeah, obviously your ad wizards don't know much about blogging, either.)

Burn Notice

I just posted this conundrum at www.safercampus.org in response to a post entitled "Stealth Conservatives At It Again":

Ashley:
I'm very curious what would persuade you that FIRE is not "a far right organization." I see they have defended (among others) Ward Churchill, as well as a professor who posted an anti-religious cartoon on his office door, and a student who was expelled from school for his environmental activism.

Alternatively, maybe you consider defending free speech for all to be a "far right" viewpoint. Does that mean you think that the "left-wing" viewpoint should be in favor of censorship or political inequality?

Or, you might say something like "Yes, they defend free speech for everyone equally, which is a Good Thing, but they are still mostly right-wing in the rest of their lives." In that case, I would suggest that you should be glad that you and they agree on at least some things, such as freedom of speech and equal legal rights. (I also suggest the same things to my right-wing friends when we discuss the ACLU!)

[Oh, when I say I posted it, I mean I tried to post it, but apparently they didn't accept it. Apparently they are biased against logic and the truth.]

Macro Zombie Virus

The midterm for ECON 715 (Macroeconomics) is coming up next week, and so is the second midterm for ECON 630 (Mathematical Economics). Last week was the midterm for ECON 811 (Microeconomics) which I would have aced except that I completely forgot how to do a Lagrange substitution. So for next time I'm having the equations for the Lagrangian auxiliary function tattooed on my arm.

Hey, Obama-For-President Campaign, Sue Me For This!

I haven't been a McCain supporter for over a year, but here's one reason I'm not for Obama either: the Obama campaign has threatened to sue television stations which air the following anti-Obama ad which gives accurate information about his anti-gun political positions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm0mo3bgvw0

As one member of The Volokh Conspiracy said,

The proper response to such attempts to infringe on the First Amendment is to make sure that the video in question receives the widest circulation possible, to deter the Obama campaign, and other campaigns for that matter, from engaging in such tactics in the future. So here it is. Share it with a friend, with a note that Obama is in violation of the First Amendment, threatening legal action against stations that run it.

Ending the Embargo on France

I'm still recovering from Thanxgiving -- and still in a period of heavy seminar-paper overload -- but I'm glad that Sarkozy is President of France. Since Eurasia /i/s/ /n/o/w/ has always been allied with Oceania, I can enjoy Beaujolais Nouveau again with a clear conscience. I got into the habit almost twenty years ago of drinking Beaujolais Nouveau with Thanxgiving turkey and I don't care what Mike Steinberger says.

Burning Man

Shouldn't this be prosecuted as a hate crime??

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A man accused of prematurely torching the Burning Man festival's namesake effigy in August has been arrested on suspicion of trying to set fire to a mosque, police said.

San Francisco performance artist Paul Addis, out on bail in the Burning Man charges, was taken into custody on the top steps of the Mosque of the Light of Allah around 11:40 p.m. Sunday, a police spokesperson said . . .

Addis had an ammunition belt of small explosives strapped around his waist, he said.

Police were tipped by a caller who said they overheard Addis talking about a plan to set fire to the local landmark. No fire was set and there was no damage to the mosque.

(Whoops, my typo, it wasn't a mosque.)