Out of Control

If the reporting by the Washington Post on grizzly bears is any indication, earmarks are going to be around for a very long time. John McCain has been using a $3 million earmark for DNA research on grizzly bears as an example--along with the infamous Bridget to Nowhere in Alaska and Hillary Clinton's support for a museum on the site of Woodstock--as an example of Congress Gone Wild on Spending. Well, apparently, the Washington Post thinks the grizzly bear earmark was a great thing. How do we know?

Actually, it was a scientific and logistical triumph, argues Katherine Kendall, 56, mastermind of the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project.

Kendall is one tough field biologist: She's rafted wild rivers, forded swollen streams and hiked through remote backcountry for weeks at a time. She goes to places inhabited by all manner of large creatures with sharp teeth. She was once charged by an enraged grizzly. She stared the bear down.

McCain doesn't get a similar puff paragraph on his war experience or standing down opposition to earmarks.

The article goes on to quote several bear lovers on how valuable their research is. Oh, their jobs are being funded by the grant from Congress or other government agencies. No conflict of interest there.

So, were any skeptics interviewed? Just a staffer at Sen. McCain's office.

For political reporting, this is pretty shabby stuff. The reporter doesn't bother to tell the reader why this program might have been wasteful, or perhaps not even the job of the federal government. That's what the debate is about.

If the Bridge to Nowhere was an excellent piece of engineering (which is should be), does that make it a justifiable public expenditure? No. Is a sports stadium a justifiable public expenditure if it represents state of the art architecture (which further lines the pockets of wealthy sports club owners and athletes). No.

But, apparently if a lovable (at a distance) furry beast of the forest is the object of Congressional largess, any federal expenditure must be justifiable unless the program crashes and burns. And the Washington Post will weigh in with shallow, uncritical, and unbalanced reporting to keep the program's funding flowing.

Our colleague Joel Kotkin has an excellent analysis of how the economic messages of Barrack Obama and HIllary Clnton might play this Tuesday in Texas and Ohio. Writing for the web site Politico, Joel observes that the two states are economically polar oppositess--Ohio a stagnant rust belt economy and Texas a vibrant up and coming state that may well eclipse California's economy sooner rather than later.

These patterns suggest some surprises in store for the candidates. Generally speaking, Hillary Rodham Clinton has done best among downwardly mobile and older voters. In relatively healthy, economically diversified Wisconsin, this appeal proved largely ineffective. But Ohio, battered by industrial decline and too many ties to Detroit, could provide a more fertile ground for Clinton’s newfound populism.

Texas’ much stronger economy poses more of a challenge. There are some serious issues — for example, a very high percentage of uninsured people in the state — which Clinton could exploit. But anti-trade rhetoric, in which Barack Obama has also indulged, and promises to bail out distressed homeowners likely will have less appeal in Texas than in places such as Ohio, Michigan and, if it gets that far, Pennsylvania.

Interesting, Joel also points out that techies and CEOs seem to be attracted to Texas's low housing costs, free market business climate, and lack of an income tax. Ohio, on the other hand, has tried unsuccessfully to revitalize its economy through tax breaks and glitzy downtown development schemes.

For more on Ohio's continued dive into the economc policy abyss, see my commentary for The Buckeye Institute here.

I’m encouraged by the growing number of independent (a.k.a. non-partisan, decline-to-state) voters in California, even if their political inclinations, when they vote, are a mixed bag (e.g. open primaries, term limits, the recall of Gov. Davis and election of Gov. Schwarzenegger).

Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California recently gave this description of the state’s independent streak:

[T]he California independent is a special breed, with views that span the political spectrum and reflect an overarching desire to reach for pragmatic, nonideological and nonpartisan solutions to problems. This voter group defines itself as politically moderate: Many have left the major parties and have no interest in ever joining a party. They often express a liberal perspective on social issues, seek action on environmental issues, and support a conservative approach on fiscal and law-and-order issues. They are also flexible in their policy and political allegiances, something that is rare in Democratic and Republican circles.

Voters registered without stating a party reached nearly 20% in yesterday's election, but was California’s purple-state trend evident in the results? PPIC polling indicated that only “1 in 5 independents said they would pick up Democratic ballots in the February primary, but this could all change if they believe their vote will count.” The high turnout suggests that a higher-than-average number of independents may have been lured to the polls. But how many decline-to-state voters in California knew that—with the Republican primary closed to unaffiliated voters—their only choice would be a Democratic ballot? And how many decline-to-state voters weren’t offered a Democratic ballot because they didn’t know they had to ask for one?

Decline-to-state registration is highest in San Francisco (29%) and also especially high in Santa Clara, Mono, Alameda, San Mateo and San Diego counties. Obama won half of those—San Francisco, Mono, and Alameda.

For what it’s worth, on the propositions, primary results matched the endorsements of the California Chamber of Commerce, but also nearly matched the Los Angeles Times and California Republican Party endorsements.

I’ll be looking for more clues as the vote tally progresses.

Well, the results are in from Super Tuesday, and liberty hasn't fared well. A complete breakdown of the results can be found in this easy to read chart at the New York Times.

Granted, we don't have the results from American Samoa in yet, but John McCain took a commanding lead in the Republican race and the Democrats will be choosing between Clinton and Obama. That's bad news for liberty any way you look at it.

Both Clinton and Obama are big spenders and traditional liberals based on their announced program. The National Taxpayers Union estimates that Clinton will pump up spending by $218 billion and Obama will prime the federal budget with $287 billion in extra money (taxes). Clinton is planning to spend $218 billion on health care (hello national health insurance) and homeland security/law enforcement. Obama, interestingly, is dumping most of his new spending ($105 billion) into economic growth, tansportation and infrastructure and health care ($99 billion). Sounds a lot like an updated New Deal.

McCain at least isn't planning to spend a lot more money--just $7 billion more spread out over defense, homeland security, health care, and education & research. So, at least fiscal conservatives can see him as a viable alternative to Clinton and Obama.

McCain's will be terrible on the regulatory side. We know that from McCain-Feingold. He's also big on foreign interventionism as our colleague Matt Welch exaplained in his engaging and candid book McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. Matt's book, by the way, is getting great reviews from readers and I was pleased to find it on the "politics best picks" display at major regional bookstore in my home town (Books & Co.).

See the Justice League debate wheter or not to admit "Super Tuesday" as its newest member to the super hero, crime fighting league. Super makes a weak case for admission, but the Batman lines are all great. Also makes the only funny hanging chad joke I have heard in years.

Quick--name one Obama accomplishment!

Having trouble? So did a Luntz-picked group of the senator's supporters.

I cross-blogged the video at reason.tv; go here to see it.

Ignorance among the Obamaites; confusion among the McCainiacs:

[T]here's a bizarre disconnect in the warm embrace between McCain and the electorate's mavericks. They hate the Iraq war, while he's willing to fight it for another century. The most pro-war presidential candidate in a decade is winning the 2008 GOP nomination thanks to the antiwar vote.

Ahh, democracy.

More from our guy, Welch.

A few months back, advocates for protecting medical use of marijuana joked that Sen. John McCain had the best position on the issue: not only did he oppose federal arrests of sick and dying people, he said "that's not the kind of society we live in, and I would strongly disapprove of it" and "I would do everything in my power to stop it," AND he went the extra mile by trying to change history, claiming that no such case had ever occurred. McCain said "I've never heard of such a case, nor does anyone that I know of know of such a case, so it must be a very well-kept secret." That was Sept. 30. Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana dogged the presidential candidates as they campaigned across New Hampshire and beyond, asking each of them about their positions on medical marijuana and sharing the answers on YouTube. The tactic clearly irritated some of the candidates, but it also worked. On Nov. 18, McCain's attitude couldn't have been more changed.

"Change" is evidently the theme of this presidential campaign, although retroactively changing history or repeatedly changing positions on an issue probably isn't what voters had in mind.

Sen. Barack Obama, while solidly against federal raids on medical marijuana patients, has wavered on the issue of broader marijuana decriminalization. Steve Chapman wrote a great piece on Obama's apparent change of mind on decriminalization:

In the political realm, a strangely disjointed view of drugs prevails. Past use is forgivable. Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton admitted to smoking marijuana, as did Al Gore and John Kerry. Obama has admitted doing the same.

At the same time, no major party presidential nominee has advocated decriminalization (much less legalization) since Jimmy Carter did so in 1976. It would be considered political suicide. So we are now in a bizarre position: A candidate who spent his college days flouting our marijuana laws can be elected president, but an abstemious, button-downed candidate who proposes to change those laws has no hope.

Had we enforced our statutes more vigorously, of course, Bush, Clinton and the others would never have been elected anything, because they would be ex-convicts. Yet Bush, Clinton and the others were happy to put people behind bars for crimes they themselves committed.

Reading the initial reports in the Washington Times, I wondered if part of the problem for politicians defining a position on decriminalization is that the term itself is not well defined. Some journalists so freely interchange "decriminalization" with "legalization" that even if Obama knows the difference, he might not trust reporters and voters to understand it.

Though we can't expect the major parties' nominees this year to make much progress on drug policy, at least this has been a good election season for educating candidates and voters alike on what is really happening and what the options are. Those wanting a refresher course (preferably before their next YouTube appearance) might want to check out Rolling Stone's "How America Lost the War on Drugs" and National Public Radio's "The Forgotten War on Drugs", two of the excellent reports on the issue this year.

Smoke-filled backroom politics apparently gave Huckabee the win in the GOP context in West Virginia--and the Paulistas were in the thick of it. The folks at Hit & Run have the dirty details and inside scoop.

Well, if there was ever any doubt that Barack Obama could unite the nation, even the world, it must have been erased when the surviving members of the Grateful Dead decided the should re-unite to support his campaign.

Bob Weir, Phil Lesh & Mickey Hart hadn't see each other in years, but could find common ground with Obama.

Sitting under a sign with the familiar skull and lightning bolt emblem that read "Deadheads for Obama '08," the three living Dead all agreed the Illinois Democrat was their man. They said the fourth member, drummer Bill Kreutzmann, also was an Obama supporter and would have joined the party except for a previous engagement in Hawaii.

"We knew instinctively, intuitively that we were all together on this. We came together, and we're doing it," said guitarist Weir, who wore an Obama button pinned to the lapel of his sport coat.

Obama has the Grateful Dead music on his ipod, but reportedly hasn't attended a concert--or, he's smart enough not to commit political suicide by admitting it! Of course, he could always say he didn't inhale.

The town of Oro Valley, Ariz., has backed off a demand that a 71-year-old resident register his blog as a political action committee after he used it to endorse two candidates who were running against incumbents.

A number of attorneys in Arizona, including Clint Bolik with the Goldwater Institute, agreed the town was completely out of line and that Art Segal, whose blog, www.letorovalleyexcel.blogspot.com, is often critical of local government policies and activities, is well within his First Amendment rights to support of any local candidate.

Bloggers such as Segal are not required to register with the government to express an opinion unless they cross the boundary into financial support, Bolick told the Arizona Daily Star.

“His blog is not a political action committee,” the attorney said. “He is simply a citizen expressing his political views.”

The clear intent of the town was to silence political opposition, Bolick said.

Oro Valley changed its mind after awkwardly defending the move, claiming that, upon receiving a complaint about the site from an anonymous citizen, local election law required it to demand Segal register. Yet one check of the rules and officials would have learned that they don’t apply to bloggers.

What’s good is that, in the end, it’s another case where Internet blogging is afforded First Amendment protections. Blogging is a legitimate form of journalism and commentary. There have been more organized attempts to silence bloggers by attempting to argue that they are not truly “media” of not “professional journalists.” Witness Apple’s lawsuit to close down Think Secret, which excelled at doing exactly what I and my one-time Electronic News colleagues were encouraged to do week after week—scoop insider company and product news. Apple “won” that suit by succeeding in closing the site. Or was it simply that Nicholas Ciarelli, who as a 13-year-old had Apple’s PR people tearing their out, grew up and had other things to do, like attend Harvard, reportedly with some cash from the Apple settlement?

So, on some level, it’s gratifying to see a town’s attempt at blogger intimidation turn out to be acknowledged for the petty power play it was.

The whole affair left Segal — who said he has given no money to the candidates he endorsed months before hearing from the town — with a bad taste in his mouth.

The resources that town officials spent trying to strong-arm him into compliance would have been better used to address issues important to Oro Valley residents, he said. "It's just another example of the wastefulness that this town has shown a propensity to do on much too many occasions," Segal said.

Michael Barone has an excellent column in today's issue of The American examining how the voting public perceives that status of the economy. In past decades, both Republicans and Democrats tended to agree on whether the economy was good or bad. In recent years, however, that's changed. Even during periods of robust economic growth (e.g., 2002-2006), Democrats tended to rate the economy much worse than Republicans.

Then, after the election of George W. Bush, the divergence between the two parties expanded into a chasm. It began to widen during the recession of March-November 2001, and it widened much more as the economy recovered and resumed low-inflation growth. By early 2006, a time of vibrant economic growth, 56 percent of Republicans said the economy was excellent or good, while only 28 percent of independents and 23 percent of Democrats agreed.

Thus,

There is a divergence here between Democrats’ and independents’ assessments of their personal economic condition, which have generally been positive, and their assessments of the economy as a whole. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that when Democrats—and, in 2004-2006, independents—were responding to questions about the condition of the economy, they were actually responding, “I am a Democrat,” or, more emphatically, “I hate George W. Bush.

In the end, Barone says, economic policy is much more likely to reflect the partisan interests of the candidate rather than an objective assessment of economic conditions.

You could knock me down with a feather: New York's Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer – a big government liberal best known for using dirty tactics to terrorize political opponents and company CEO’s – proposed a bold new plan to cap property taxes in his recent state-of-state address. The plan, which seeks to impose a "fair and effective cap" on school taxes in New York, is remarkable for two reasons: One, it has been proposed by a big government liberal. Two, it will drive teachers unions, a key Democratic constituency, totally bonkers. But the governor seems unfazed. He insists that though the cap is a “blunt instrument,” it is necessary to force “hard choices and discipline when nothing else works” to rein in wasteful spending by schools.

Ronald Reagan couldn't have said it better!

Read New York Post columnist, E.J. Mcmahon’s, take here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/eliots_excellent_idea_804389.htm?page=2

A radio ad aired by Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire has unleashed a firestorm of protest by the media. In it, Giuliani, a prostate cancer survivor, thanks God that he was treated in the United State’s (semi-socialized) medical system where survival rates for this type of cancer are 82 percent – as opposed to the (fully) socialized medical system in Britain where survival rates are allegedly only 44 percent.

But a number of reporters and pundits have pounced on the stat like a jackal on a bunny (actually, make that an ant). Rick Klein of ABC News accuses Rudy of “fuzzy healthcare math.” Ezra Klein of CBS denounces the stat as a “straight lie resulting from a basic mathematical error.” Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson intones that this is precisely the kind of “cherry-picking” of data that has caused 160,000 US soldiers to be bogged down in Iraq.

My, my! So what exactly is the truth, according to these oracles?

Well, WaPo’s Michael Dobbs claims that mortality rates for prostate cancer in the United States and UK are the same: About 25 men out of 100,000 die of prostate cancer each year in the two countries. But that comparison hides more than it reveals.

Rudy’s claim was taken from an article in a 2007 issue of the City Journal by Dr. David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute – and a contributor to Reason Roundtable – that were based on 2000 OECD data. Gratzer admits the figures are now outdated -- although it is curious as to why he used 2000 figures in a 2007 article (he does provide an answer of sorts in a New York Post article linked below.) But Gratzer points out that Dobb’s comparison is based on overall mortality rates. That is, the percentage of all Americans who die of prostate cancer is similar to the percentage of all Britons.

However, Gratzer, who is also Rudy's health care policy adviser, notes, that this comparison misses the point given that a much higher percentage of Americans are diagnosed with prostate cancer than Britons. And the latest figures from Lancet Oncology, a respected journal, show that the five-year survival rate of people diagnosed with prostate cancer is much higher in the U.S. (99 percent) than in Europe (78 percent) and Scotland and Wales (71 percent). Britain’s latest figures are not yet available.

Gratzer’s detractors such as Eugene Robinson of WaPo, however, counter that the higher prostate cancer diagnosis in the U.S. is not the result of higher incidence of cancer -- but of early screening and detection. And that discredits Rudy and Gratzer how? Because very often this type of cancer is non-lethal and its detection bumps up U.S. survival rates among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer even when they are not treated or treated inadequately. Get it?

But even if these pundits were right that the higher diagnosis of non-lethal prostate cancer does artificially boost the survival rate of U.S. patients, can it account for the entire 22-27 percent differential between U.S. and European survival rate that the Lancet study found? Highly unlikely.

The bottom-line is that Rudy’s accusers have no fool-proof evidence of willful mendacity on his part. Rudy might have over-stated his case (Isn’t that shocking: a politician overstating!). But they have certainly engaged in over-kill.

All of which raises this interesting question: Where were these pundits when Al Gore was going around making movies claiming that global warming would cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet, when, in reality, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put the figure at no more than two feet: a ten-fold exaggeration?

How do you spell d-o-u-b-l-e s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d?

David Gratzer's column in the New York Post taking on his critics here:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11052007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/uks_bad_medicine_901295.htm?CMP=EMC-email_edition&DATE=11052007

WaPo's Eugene Robinson's commentary here:
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/209570

On one hand, Arnie and his staff apparently saw the fire season coming and cut red tape to get a DC10 tanker approved that has turned out to be a big part of the firefighting effort. [Note in the article however, that the Feds have been unwilling to give the issue any priority]

But Arnie's grandstanding roots quickly came to the fore. During a visit to an evacuation center he got snippy when asked by a reporter about the state refusing to use military helicopters to help on the fire due to bureaucratic rules. “All you have to do is look around here and see how happy people are,” he said. “No one is screaming. No one is complaining. Anyone who is complaining about the planes just wants to complain.” Ahh, so in other words, focus on my visit to the refugees, and don't ask any impertinent questions about actually working on helping get the fires put out.

Hat tip to Richard Rider in San Diego for point out thes and other interesting things about the fires.

I heard the most illuminating – and the most depressing – assessment of Iraq yet last Wednesday at Michigan State University where Stephen Biddle, one of the most – if not the most -- respected military strategists in the United States, was speaking. (Full disclosure: Biddle was invited as part of a lecture series called the Symposium on Science, Reason and Modern Democracy that my husband co-directs at the MSU political science department.)

Biddle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and award-winning author of Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle, and an early opponent of the war, explained why America’s pre-surge strategy in Iraq was a colossal failure. And even though the current U.S. strategy is on the right track, he put its odds of success – defined not as the creation of some fancy-shmantzy pluralistic democracy in Iraq, but just “sustainable stability” -- at no more than 10 to 15 percent. And that too if the U.S. maintains the current approximately 160,000 troops for at least 8 to 10 years till a new generation of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds has had a chance to grow up without each side feeling that it was about to be slaughtered by the other. This is an enormously difficult and expensive proposition with huge opportunity costs. But if the U.S. is not prepared for such a commitment, he believed, it should hit the exit doors now. This would certainly lead to an all-out civil war with epical bloodletting and nightmarish geo-political consequences for the whole region – but at least it wouldn’t cost anymore U.S. lives.

What, most emphatically, wouldn’t work was the middle-ground that every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, was proposing: Cutting troop levels in half and changing their mission from combat to peace-keeping. This would make U.S. troops sitting ducks for both Sunni and Shiite militias without preventing their mutual slaughter. “This is a situation where the extreme options – total withdrawal now or a big troop commitment for about 10 years -- are clearly better than the middle one.”

Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s plan for carving up the country into a loose federation of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves was wishful thinking too, Biddle felt. To convince Sunnis, who have little oil in their areas, to go along with such an arrangement, Biden proposes that an oil-sharing formula be written into the Iraqi constitution. But who’ll enforce the constitution? Given that Sunnis constitute only 20 percent of the population and have only minimal political representation, it would have to be the Shiite-dominated government. So we would basically be asking the Sunnis to lay down their arms for the sake of a piece of paper that would be enforced by their mortal enemies.

But the most interesting part of the lecture was Biddle’s explanation for why America was not able to control the insurgency till General Petraus took over. Till then, Biddle noted, the U.S. was not fighting Iraq – it was refighting Vietnam. Essentially, there are two types of insurgencies: A classic ideological insurgency and a sectarian-communal civil war. Vietnam was the first type of conflict where different groups were struggling with each other to impose their idea of good government on the rest of the country. Iraq, however, is the second kind of conflict where each is trying to protect itself and its identity. “The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are fighting a zero-sum game with existential stakes.”

Indeed, U.S. efforts to apply the lessons of Vietnam to Iraq, namely political reconciliation through elections, economic reconstruction and rebuilding an indigenous military, actually “poured gasoline on the flames of the Iraqi insurgency.” For instance, consider the creation of an indigenous force: In an ideological conflict, this would make perfect sense. Afterall, unlike foreign troops, locals have a direct stake in the well-being of their country. Moreover, since they speak the local language, they can more easily separate innocents from guerillas and avoid targeting the wrong people – something that is essential to gain the confidence of the larger population. But in Iraq’s case, none of this applied. In a country riven by ethnic hatreds, there was no reason to believe that an indigenous army would protect all Iraqi lives equally – or that it would be possible to convince anyone that it would. Thus, as far as the Sunnis were concerned, Biddle noted, the force that we put together was nothing short of a “Shiite militia on steroids.” Their response under the cirumstances was completely rational: escalate their insurgency and prevent this force from ever taking root. Even the much vaunted elections in Iraq fuelled the sectarian fires because, in a war of identity, electoral politics creates a further incentive to demonize the other groups. They gave Shiites an opportunity to say to fellow Shittes, “Vote for me and I’ll protect you from the Sunni Devils” – and vice versa. “Elections, did not mitigate underlying conflict, they intensified the centrifugal forces that were breaking-up Iraqi society.”

If things have calmed down a bit since General Petraeus took over in February, it is not necessarily because going in he had a more accurate understanding of the nature of the conflict – but sheer dumb luck. Even though we were screwing up badly in Iraq, as it turns out, al Qaida was screwing up even more. In Anbar Province, a predominantly Sunni area, al Qaida was systematically terrorizing the local population, leaving Sunni leaders with no option but to approach our units as the lesser of the two evils.

The success in routing out al Qaida in Anbar with local cooperation gave birth to what, Biddle calls, Petraus’ new bottom-up approach in Iraq in addition to the top-down model that U.S. had hitherto followed. The top-down apporach aimed exclusively at controlling the security situation in Baghdad in order to create the politcal space for a power-sharing compromise. “Petraus has decided to do this (stabalize the country) retail, as opposed to imposing a wholesale formula from the top.”

The new approach involves cutting bilateral deals with every local faction – and Biddle counted 20 main ones – under which the U.S. gives them the following option: Either stop shooting at us and, in return, we will not only let you keep your arms but also place U.S. troops in your neighborhood to protect you from your enemies. Or, if you decline, we will raid your homes, take away anything that you can possibly use to defend yourself. “And, once we are finished, guess what your enemies across the street will do to you.”

“We have to counter existential stakes with existential stakes,” Biddle notes. “We can’t convince them to lay down their arms for three hours more of electricity a day.”

If the U.S. had the troop strength and the resources to fully implement both the top-down and bottom-up approach simultaneously, then U.S. prospects of succeeding would be better than the one- in-10 odds that Biddle gives them. But that would require nothing short of reinstituting the draft – a political impossibility. So sooner or later General Petraus will have to decide to give up one or the other.

In the end, Biddle noted that the administration’s strategy of maintaining current troop levels was rational – and CATO Institute’s strategy of getting out now was rational. Everything else was irresponsible or wishful thinking.

But these choices themselves testify that Iraq is a tar baby the U.S. never should have grabbed. Thank you President Bush!

Courtesy, the South Asian Journalists Association (SAJA), here is an interesting story about intellectual property enforcement gone amuck:
It seems that Penguin books and Harry Potter author JK Rowling won't be collecting $50,000 from a Durga Puja (Durga is a Hindu goddess and Puja means prayer) committee in Calcutta. A court threw out their claim of copyright infringement over a (huge) unauthorized replica of the Hogwarts school for wizards, constructed for the Hindu festival. The images (that can be viewed on Reuters) show the mockup (pandal) on the left and the actual, film version of Hogwarts on the right.

From a Daily Mail (UK) article on the decision:
Organisers of the festival in Calcutta said they were 'overjoyed' after claiming a court ruling allowed the hybrid Hindu-Potter festival to take place without any compensation payment. The community's lawyer, Ghose Chaudhuri, said: "The court has given us permission to use the Pandal (the structure) and whatever has been made till the 26th of October, no compensation has been directed to be paid."

From a BBC article, prior to the decision:
Members say that they make a different model every year - in the past they have built the Titanic. This year they chose Hogwarts School - as well as life-size models of Harry Potter and his friends. Organisers said a mock steam engine train is also being constructed next to it, to resemble Hogwarts Express. Correspondents say the construction is nearing completion and is expected to cost around 1.2 million Indian rupees ($30,000). But it is argued that the organisers did not seek permission, and so are being sued for breach of copyright.
I've been in Kolkata during Puja (when it was still Calcutta) and saw some of the more outlandish modern themes used for pandals - I vaguely remember a huge Rambo towering over us. These are scattered all over the city, along with more traditional takes on the festival.

Check out the 2 comments that follow the Daily Mail article - both from English readers:
I think this has taken Rowling down a few pegs in my estimation. The sheer greed, of someone who has millions, in trying to claim £25,000 from a simple religious non-profit making festival, is beyond belief. - Jennifer Thomson, Manchester England

Of course it is vital to both Rowling and Warners to get the money in from this type of thing to keep the franchise going. A few hundred million is never enough. What's next? Charging the kids for walking around as Harry Potter on Halloween? - Freddie, Dorset, England

More on Durga Puja at Wikipedia:
During the week of Durga Puja, in the entire state of West Bengal as well as in large enclaves of Bengalis everywhere, life comes to a complete standstill. In playgrounds, traffic circles, ponds -- wherever space may be available -- elaborate structures called pandals 'are set up, many with nearly a year's worth of planning behind them. The word pandal means a temporary structure, made of bamboo and cloth, which is used as a temporary temple for the purpose of the puja. While some of the pandals are simple structures, others are often elaborate works of art with themes that rely heavily on history, current affairs and sometimes pure imagination. Somewhere inside these complex edifices is a stage on which Durga reigns, standing on her lion mount, wielding ten weapons in her ten hands. This is the religious center of the festivities, and the crowds gather to offer flower worship or pushpanjali on the mornings, of the sixth to ninth days of the waxing moon fortnight known as Devi Pakshya

Is one of the new fads in bans--banning baby formula in favor of breastfeeding--an anti-nanny nanny law? And is that why nanny law proponents are speaking out against it?

NewsBusters' Geoffrey Dickens investigates:

On this morning's Today show, NBC's Meredith Vieira and Dr. Nancy Snyderman became born-again libertarians in their opposition to New York City's ban on bottle feeding babies. Vieira called the measure "drastic" and Snyderman urged, "not so fast." The ban even inspired "Today" to coin a new series segment called "Nanny State." However, back in 2006, when New York City infringed on another right - the right to eat fatty foods, Snyderman struck a different tone, as she gravely warned about the dangers of trans fats.

My pal Todd Seavey says Ron Paul could take it all:

And for those who say it can’t happen, here’s the beauty part: Get Paul through the primaries, to the Republican nomination, and he has the tools to take on Hillary. He plainly gets the libertarian swing voters that the Republicans lost in 2006, he should garner most conservative votes when contrasted with Hillary, and — here’s the clincher — he gets a huge share of the bourgeoning antiwar vote to boot. Think about it: Clinton has already alienated the substantial antiwar faction of the Democratic party, while Ron Paul has inspired a supportive banner even at an anarchist rally full of hippies and punks, urging people to join the Ron Paul “love revolution.”

Whole NRO piece here.

…from the world economy.

Alas, there is no link as I witnessed the crass appeal to economic populism first-hand. Speaking at the ALEC annual conference, the Presidential aspirant and former Arkansas Governor outlined a comprehensive plan to pull the US out of the world economy. His main points:

1. Tax reform (good idea) to get American corporations to repatriate the $10 trillion they have ‘parked’ overseas and ‘reinvest’ it in the US to ‘rebuild’ our manufacturing base (terrible idea)
2. A new big federal effort to develop domestic, alternative fuels so that in 10 years, ‘we don’t have to take a drop of foreign oil’ (terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea)
3. “fair trade” instead of “free trade”

Now, this latest “man-from-Hope” has about as much chance of being sworn in as President in 2009 as I do. But the rapturous applause and standing ovation he received from the 1,000 or so conservative—mostly republican—state legislators in the room was ominous evidence that large segments of the right are retreating into nativism and fear. The recent demagoguery on immigration may not have been an isolated outlier.

Those fighting to ban race-based admission policies in public schools and colleges won a big victory today. The Supreme Court just struck down Seattle and Kentucky school districts' practice of matching students to schools by race. For years, hundreds of kids have been denied admission to schools of their choice in their own neighborhood in favor of worse ones much further away. Why? Because their skin tone threatened to disrupt the delicate racial balance district authorities were trying to achieve.

The court’s 5-4 decision in these cases effectively reversed its ruling three years ago when it gave the University of Michigan’s race-based admission policies a thumbs’ up. Outraged Michigan voters last year overturned that decision when they overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative spearheaded by black California businessman Ward Connerly to ban the use of race in government admission and hiring. Connerly is launching similar petition drives in five more states in time for the 2008 November elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing the majority opinion in the Kentucky and Seattle cases, noted that school authorities had failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating why such race-based policies were necessary. “The best way to stop discrimination by race,” he said, “is to stop discriminating by race.”

Amen!

Here are the links to Reason’s coverage of the Michigan ballot initiative:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20061026b.shtml
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20061107.shtml

And here is the Wall Street Journal story of the latest Supreme Court ruling:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118303957086351501.html?mod=djemalert

Have you seen Google's public policy blog?

They say, "We hope this blog will serve as a resource for policymakers around the world -- including legislators, ministers, governors, city councilmembers, regulators, and the staffers who support them -- who are trying to enact sound government policies to foster free expression, promote economic growth, expand access to information, enable innovation, and protect consumers. We also hope (cliché alert) that this blog will promote real conversation, so we've enabled comments."

Interesting... you can check it out here.

I meant to post a quick note last week about Environmental Working Group's new and improved Farm Subsidy Database. EWG credits "USDA's compliance with Section 1614 of the 2002 farm bill, which required the department to track farm subsidy benefits through myriad farm businesses to the ultimate beneficiaries" for the new data, but other new features also make this one-of-a-kind resource even more useful--for example, a tie-in to Google that allows you to see the location of farm subsidy recipients in your own neighborhood. (No, it doesn't matter if you live in an urban area--so do subsidy recipients. After all, they can afford it!)

Some highlights from EWG's findings:

* The top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005. Their average benefit was $377,484 per person for the 3 program years or over $125,000 apiece annually.
* The top 10% of beneficiaries receive 66% of the Title 1 farm program payments, with an average payment of $148,077 over 3 program years.
* The bottom 80% of beneficiaries received only 16% of the Title 1 farm program payments, with an average payment of $4,508 over three program years.
* 19 congressional districts (of 435) accounted for half of federal crop subsidies paid between 2003 and 2005.
* The new data show that despite that detail, EWG and, for that matter, USDA itself, have been unable to track over one-third of all subsidies to their ultimate beneficiaries - until now. Some 350,000 people who previously have not been identified as direct recipients of federal farm subsidy money by EWG have actually been the beneficiaries of almost a third of the $34.75 billion in crop subsidies provided by American taxpayers between 2003 and 2005 alone.

And EWG added to their previous research on irrigation subsidies with a report last month on energy subsidies in California's Central Valley Project (CVP):

* In 2002 and 2003 CVP agribusinesses paid only about 1 cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity used to transport irrigation water.
* CVP power rates were 10 to 15 times lower than PG&E's industrial, agricultural, and residential power rates during this time period.
* In 2002 and 2003 CVP agribusinesses received power subsidies worth $115 and $105 million, respectively, when compared to PG&E's agricultural electricity rates.
* The power that the Bureau of Reclamation sells to CVP agribusinesses for the storage and transportation of Project water is essentially unregulated. No government agency, other than the Bureau itself, oversees its rates.
* One CVP water district gets more power subsidies than all others combined: Westlands Water District, which is dominated by a handful of large cotton growers in Fresno and Kings counties. In 2002 alone Westlands' power subsidies were worth more than $71 million, an average of $165,000 per farm.

If I had posted the link to the new database when it was published, though, I would have been telling only half the story--because only two days later, EWG sent out the following petition:

I support EWG Action Fund's efforts to increase funding for organic farming. I believe Congress should level the playing field for organic farmers....I urge our national leaders to include strong organics provisions in this year's Farm Bill that will: Give organic farmers their fair share of my tax dollars for research on how to grow organic food. Help more farmers make the transition to organic farming. Level the playing field for the organic industry...

Eee-eie-eee-eie-ouch! Is that an appeal to double the size of the farm bill? EWG maintains a database that helps to put a dollar figure on that otherwise vague feeling that we taxpayers are getting ripped off--yet some (including, apparently, folks at EWG) just see it as a tool to advocate for equal opportunity at the trough.

Christian Probasco has written an article called “California Looms” for New West about California nanny statism and other legislative tomfoolery. Probasco fears that the legislative excesses of California may work their way to other states in the western region (and elsewhere). As he notes in his column,

California is a trendsetter state. Much like the weather, every Californian fad eventually makes its way over the Sierras and diffuses into the intermountain West. That’s wonderful, and it’s frightening, because there are some pretty disturbing things going on in the Golden State right now.

It is, I fear, a legitimate concern. As my colleague Skaidra Smith-Heisters is quoted as saying the article, “What is perhaps different about California is that politicians and voters are not shy about approving radical laws. They enjoy the sense that California is the first state to try new things.”

Among some of the nanny bills being considered in California:

• AB 722—Would “phase out” the sale of incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs (despite the fact that harmful levels of mercury from fluorescent bulbs can add up in landfills, contaminating the soil and making their way into the food supply). This bill has been amended so that now, instead of banning bulbs outright, it would have the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission set a minimum energy efficiency for bulbs. A nice P.R. move (banning things seems so harsh, but who can be against energy efficiency?) that would, in practice, still essentially ban incandescent bulbs.
• SB 7—Would ban smoking in a vehicle—moving or stationary—in which there is a minor.
• AB 86/AB 90/AB 97/SB 490—Would restrict the use of trans fats in restaurants and school cafeterias.
• SB 120/SB 180—Would require caloric, trans fat, saturated fat, and sodium content information to be printed on restaurant menus.
• AB 1634—Would require dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their animals by four months of age.

On their own, such nanny measures may seem innocuous, but small erosions of liberties can lead to large losses of freedom in the long run. As I said to Mr. Probasco in the article:

“In the grand scheme of things, it might seem like a minor inconvenience to buy a different kind of light bulb (and to have to start recycling instead of throwing them away) or to stop smoking in your own car if kids are present or include certain nutritional information on restaurant menus, but such minor violations of liberty add up over time. Before long, you look back and realize that you have given up a lot of your freedoms merely by acquiescing to others’ beliefs on how you should live your life.”

Philosopher and economist David Hume said, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." If we want to continue to enjoy the blessings of a free society, it would be wise for us—in California or anywhere else—to heed his warning.

The latest Public Policy Institute of California statewide poll is a zinger--

Although California has substantial debt and a large, ongoing budget gap, 64 percent of likely voters support Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal to issue $43.3 billion more in bonds to increase funding for education facilities, prisons, water storage, and other infrastructure projects. Besides that, when told that California has approved approximately $93 billion in bonds over the past decade, 59 percent of likely voters say that amount is about right or “too little.”...What might explain this spending complacency from voters who consistently tell surveys that government wastes their tax dollars? It could be what they don’t know: 52 percent of voters admit that they know very little (43%) or nothing (9%) about how bonds are paid for in California. A mere 6 percent say they know a lot. “We don’t know how deep the lack of understanding runs,” says PPIC president and CEO Mark Baldassare. “Many voters may be thinking about bonds as free money, and not as debt that has to be repaid with interest.”

Voters are equally uninformed about another critical issue they may be voting on next year — the term limits of state legislators. And they are apparently even more conflicted. When asked to name the maximum number of years a legislator can hold office in California, only 1 percent of likely voters and all adults could give the correct answer — 14 years....Moreover, a majority of those who think current term limits provide the right amount of time also say they would vote yes on the initiative that changes those limits (56%).

I'm thinking we need billboards and skywriters flying over the state with the message "Bonds are a tax you pay twice," but other ideas are welcome. The full survey is here.

Well, I feel silly.

A couple days ago I expressed amused shock that the Alabama House Majority leader was also on the payroll of two state community colleges. It seemed to me a rather cozy relationship, since the Majority Leader exercises considerable control over the state budget and appropriations to these schools.

Well, it turns out that about ONE-THIRD of the legislators in Alabama—or their immediate family members—are employed by community colleges in the state. Half the members of the Education Committees in both the House and the Senate (or their relatives) derive significant income from the state’s two-year colleges.

No wonder the colleges’ budget has increased 50% since 2001.

And it isn’t just two-year colleges. One prominent GOP state Senator is also a public school teacher, drawing a full-time salary even though his legislative work forces him to miss 105 of the school’s 180 teaching days.

Governor Riley is making noises about prohibiting these relationships. Many legislators are crying that this would be unconstitutional. I hope their argument generates LOTS of public debate.

Imagine the outcry from shareholders if a top executive of a company was also on the payroll of two of the company’s suppliers. Hell, legislative hearings have been convened on lesser conflicts of interest.

Fortunately, this isn’t the latest business scandal. Unfortunately, however, it is how things are often done in politics these days. This story chronicles an unfolding melodrama in Alabama, where the House Majority Leader, Rep. Ken Guinn, was on the payroll of two state taxpayer-supported community colleges. The two schools paid Rep. Guinn almost $100,000 a year at the same time that he held considerable sway over the state budget.

What exactly Rep. Guinn did for the colleges is unclear, although news sources report that one of the school’s leaders noted that Rep. Guinn “has brought in more money for the college than he’s been paid.”

Well.

No doubt, any state appropriation to these schools was fully vetted and found to be in the best interests of the taxpayers. I’m certain their case for taxpayer funds will be equally strong without a Majority Leader on the payroll.

I know an army moves on its stomach, but I'm not sure about the electorate. According to this story Presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is taking his campaign to the Food Network to warn about the dangerous threat of childhood obesity.

(Alas, the story is gated but it is short. Full text below)

LITTLE ROCK (AP) - Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is taking his presidential campaign to an unlikely forum - the Food Network.
Huckabee will be featured on the network Saturday night on a segment focusing on childhood obesity, his exploratory campaign announced Thursday.
Huckabee, who lost more than 110 pounds after being diagnosed with diabetes, focused on children's obesity during his term as governor and pushed for regular screenings of the body mass of school children.
His campaign said Food Network producers traveled to Arkansas last fall to interview him about the state's efforts to reduce the number of overweight children in the state.
"While I was governor of Arkansas, we made great strides in addressing the dangers of childhood obesity," Huckabee said. "Removing vending machines from elementary schools, conducting body-mass-index testing and working to increase physical activity in the schools has played a big part in increasing health awareness among children."
Huckabee, a Republican who left office in January, this year formed a presidential exploratory committee for the 2008 race.

Well.

Now, using the sovereign power of a state to police school vending machines is no doubt a burning issue at many PTA meetings across the country, but I'm not certain it is the kind of thing that qualifies one to become "leader of the free world." No doubt the founding fathers had a more modest vision for the new form of government they were struggling to build.

"Give me lean cuisine or give me death" isn't exactly the kind of slogan to warm one's soul during a winter at Valley Forge.

An I-told-you-so moment from yesterday's Associated Press article on the high price of tobacco products inside California's prisons since the July 2005 ban:

California's ban on tobacco in prisons has produced a burgeoning black market behind bars, where a pack of smokes can fetch up to $125....At Folsom State Prison, a cook quit last year after he was caught walking onto prison grounds with several plastic bags filled with rolling tobacco in his jacket. He told authorities he was earning more smuggling tobacco – upwards of $1,000 a week – than he did in his day job.

And the shockingly sensible conclusion:

Chuck Alexander, executive vice president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, said lawmakers should either roll back the prohibition or add stronger penalties....“It didn't do anything but make (tobacco) a lucrative business,” he said.

North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner, Roger Johnson, is presenting paperwork from two prospective North Dakota hemp farmers licensed under the state’s new (and nationally unprecedented) industrial hemp licensure law to the DEA this week. The process is costing these farmers a premium in application fees, including:

* Fingerprinting and criminal background check ($52)
* State license fee ($150)
* DEA import application fee ($1,147)
* DEA manufacturing application fee ($2,293)

—especially considering that these are, for the most part, annual, non-refundable fees, and few expect the applications to be approved by the DEA, a requirement of the North Dakota licensure law. One of the applicants is North Dakota state legislator and farmer, David Monson, who wants to plant ten acres of hemp on his farm. For his part, he says getting fingerprinted and GPSing his field for the license was “kind of fun,” but fellow farmers are calling the $400 per acre licensing and security costs “kind of spendy.”

Related: A weed to watch out for

Yes, BUT, PPIC has asked a similar question before and and got worse results:

May 2006: higher taxes and more services (55%), lower taxes and fewer services (38%), don't know (7%)
Jan. 2006: higher taxes and more services (61%), lower taxes and fewer services (31%), don't know (8%)

The low was Nov. 2003, as we were certifying our recall of Gov. Davis: higher taxes and more services (38%), lower taxes and fewer services (54%), don't know (8%)

And last fall, they asked a similar question:

In general, which of the following statements do you agree with more—I’d rather pay higher taxes and have the state government spend more money on infrastructure projects; or: I’d rather pay lower taxes and have the state government spend less money on infrastructure projects?
(PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future, September 2006)

Results:
44% want higher taxes and more money for infrastructure projects
47% want lower taxes and less money for infrastructure projects
9% don't know

And last summer they asked:

Do you think the people in state government waste a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, or don’t waste very much of it?
(PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future, August 2006)

Results:
58% said "a lot "
35% said "some"
4% said "don't waste very much"
3% don't know

In these polls, Californians were never asked, "Would you like to have lower taxes and higher services?" I think all they might be saying when they advocate higher taxes and more services is that they want their roads and other basic infrastructure to work, and they don't know of any other way to do it except higher taxes.

We don't need to puke until Californians poll overwhelmingly in favor of "higher taxes and fewer services."

I don't know why I let this stuff make me so mad. . .

When Governor Schwarzenegger presented his budget plan, he was full of boasts. Including, "I’m very happy to announce today that in this new budget our new operating deficit has been reduced to zero. You heard me right. We have reduced the operating deficit to zero."

Wow! Realy? That would be major progress after too many years of spending more than comes in. But no, of course not, it was a big fat lie.

The first clue came form state Finance Director Mike Genest pointing out that the budget "spends $1,863,000,000 more than it takes in."

Ring the clue bell. That means we have NOT reduced the operating deficit to zero.

Word games ensue. More details here. But short story is Genest says the $1.8 billion shortfall is "a gross operating deficit" and the governorwas talking about the "net operating deficit." Huh? Well, that means the governor was not counting one time expenses like paying back debt. Huh? again!

Well hell. I can balance my budget that way. I just won't count one time expeses like paying the taxes I owe on April 15th!

Ring the clue bell again. A budget is an accounting of all revenue and spending. SImply "not counting" something doesn't make it balance. Well, maybe in the movies.

President Bush's Saturday radio address was a knee slapper.

When you decide how to spend your paycheck, you have to set priorities and live within your means. Congress needs to do the same thing with the money you send to Washington. That was one of the clear messages American voters sent in the mid-term elections. And one of the best ways we can impose more discipline on federal spending is by addressing the problem of earmarks.

Sooooooo. In other words: Ignore the fact that Congress and I spent money like drunken Paris Hiltons for the past 6 years. I.e. ignore that little man behind the curtain, says the great Oz. Really, we are now going to get serious about not spending so much. Of course, we don't have so much control over spending now. . .

What really chaps my hide is that he decides to focus on earmarks!! Sure earmarks suck and lead to lots of stupid spending. But it is trivial compared to the ponderous, bloated major spending programs. Hey President, how about taking responsibility for your part in overspending and going back to your 2000 ideas about using actual performance to evaluate spending priorities?

Quick: al Qaeda is what, Sunni or Shia?

If you don’t know, it doesn’t matter all that much if you’re a doctor, a bartender, or a software programmer. It’s a different story if you’re the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

CQ’s Jeff Stein gives Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) a pop quiz:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

Reyes also didn’t know which camp Hezbollah belongs to. And it’s not a Democrat thing--Rs who have flunked Stein’s quizzing include Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala. Several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI also flunked.

Article here.

When gas prices rise, we get wails from the public and endless investigations into whether “Big Oil” might be screwing consumers.

But what happens when Big Milk flexes its political muscle to keep prices artificially high?

America’s suburbs are growing in economic influence, while cities are declining. But these days when it comes to politics, big-city mayors often get promotions. That’s especially interesting because back when cities enjoyed more influence mayors often found that their upward political mobility stalled:

Here’s Joel Kotkin:

But today, mayors across America are riding an unprecedented wave of upward mobility. Here in California, for example, the men most widely touted to become governor once the Terminator terminates are not any of the myriad of statewide Democratic officeholders, but two high-profile mayors, San Francisco's Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles' Antonio Villaraigosa.

And this is not just another weird California phenomenon. Earlier this month, Ed Rendell, former mayor of Philadelphia, was easily re-elected governor of Pennsylvania. Another mayor, Martin O'Malley, became governor of Maryland despite a less-than-stellar record in governing crime-ravaged Baltimore.

There are others on the way. Houston's highly effective Mayor Bill White and Denver's popular "hip and cool" John Hickenlooper are already seen as serious contenders to being elected governor.

And for the first time in more than four decades, a former mayor, New York's Rudy Giuliani, stands as a serious candidate for president.

Sure many mayors haven’t done much to actually improve their cities. Take San Francisco’s Newsom:

He's already lost the Olympics and maybe the 49ers as well. He has failed to reverse San Francisco's business-repelling political culture or its reputation for left-wing lunacy. The city's looming long-term fiscal crisis, largely the product of bloated public employee pensions, also has not been dealt with.

But never mind these boring details. Like O'Malley, Newsom is young. He's handsome. He exudes a hip-and-cool image that commands attention from local media, members of the opposite sex and political elites. If he starts campaigning in Hollywood, meager content and appealing looks can be counted on as a winning combination.

More here.

I first heard about this from the CA Political News and Views and thought I smelled an urban legend.

But the Fox News story looks legit--PETA beefing a church over its "living nativity". Oh, the horror that could befal those poor animals. Except, wait, they are actually people in costumes!

Best (worst) part of the story is the PETA clown talking about all the terrible things that have happened to animals in nativity scenes, including "they've been raped"! Really!? He lists examples of the other bad things, but not that one. I am thinking if someone is determined to partake of sheep love they can find a way around a lack of living nativities.

When PETA just focuses on fighting real and cruel abuses of animals they are usually doing good. But when they insist on attacking every conceivable situation in which an animal might accidentally get hurt no matter how benign the intent of the people involved they become clowns and undermine what should be their real mission.

When the CA legislature voted itself a hefty pay raise earlier this year, a number of legislators loudly proclaimed they would not take the raise. Then, once the stink died down, they went back and accepted the raise. My favorites are the weasels who did it after it could not effect the election.

Loudly, according to the Senate races. Republicans won just one Senate race, the open race in Tennessee, and it was close. Democrat incumbents won eveyr race. No Republican incumbents won their races. Voters, in essence, "threw the bums out".

The Senate winners In races where:

the incumbent won:

Liebermann (D)
Menendez (D)
Clinton (D)
Cantwell (D)

the incumbent lost:

Stabenow (D)
McCaskill (D)
Tester (D)
Brown (D)
Casey (D)
Whitehouse (D)
Webb (D)

Open races:

Cardin (D)
Klobucher (D)
Corker (R)

If there’s more to your melancholy mood than the concern that your side won’t do well tomorrow, you’re not alone.

Here’s Bryan Caplan on voter irrationality:

Like moths to the flame, voters gravitate to the same mistakes. They do not cancel each other out; they compound.

Caplan’s no O’Reilly/Dobbs populist. He argues that the average voter usually gets it wrong and that the experts usually get it right:

Economists and the public hold radically different beliefs about the economy. Compared to the experts, laymen are much more skeptical of markets, especially international and labor markets, and much more pessimistic about the past, present, and future of the economy. When laymen see business conspiracies, economists see supply-and-demand. When laymen see ruinous competition from foreigners, economists see the wonder of comparative advantage. When laymen see dangerous downsizing, economists see wealth-enhancing reallocation of labor. When laymen see decline, economists see progress.
…
So what remedies for voter irrationality would I propose? Above all, relying less on democracy and more on private choice and free markets. By and large, we don't even ask voters whether we should allow unpopular speech or religion, and this "elitist" practice has saved us a world of trouble. Why not take more issues off the agenda? Even if the free market does a mediocre job, the relevant question is not whether smart, well-meaning regulation would be better. The relevant question is whether the kind of regulation that appeals to the majority would be better.

Interesting stuff. Read the whole essay here.

With just one week to go, we can still speculate about Election Day outcomes. Anything could happen. How about this scenario: six states move closer to tobacco prohibition, while six states liberalize marijuana regulations.

Libertarian Party candidates are often a wacky bunch. There was Howard Stern, of course, and how about Montana’s Stan Jones?

His skin turned blue after downing a homemade concoction he thought would protect him from a wave of disease that would be unleashed during post-Y2K antibiotics shortages.

And now some good news for all the fellas who gripe about the lack of ladies in the movement:

Loretta Nall, the Libertarian Party's write-in candidate for governor of Alabama, is campaigning on her cleavage and hoping that voters will eventually focus on her platform.

``It started out as a joke, but it blew up into something huge,'' said Nall, a 32-year-old with dyed blond hair.

Her campaign is offering T-shirts and marijuana stash boxes adorned with a photo of her with a plunging neckline and the words: ``More of these boobs.'' Below that are pictures of other candidates for governor - including Republican incumbent Bob Riley and Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley - and the words: ``And less of these boobs.''

Article here; campaign website here.

Cato does it again:

Only one governor receives an A this year— Republican Matt Blunt of Missouri. The next two highest-scoring Republicans are Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina. The highest-scoring Democratic governors are John Lynch of New Hampshire and Phil Bredesen of Tennessee.

Who’s the worst governor in America? Blanco and Napolitano tied for the worst score.

Nine governors receive Fs. In alphabetical order, they are Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Michael Easley of North Carolina, Kenny Guinn of Nevada, Christine Gregoire of Washington, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bob Riley of Alabama, and Brian Schweitzer of Montana.

More here.

A while back I pointed to this NYT piece that suggested that, except for the likes of dopey W, almost everybody is on board with hiking the gas tax. Now WaPo uses the same narrative:

raising taxes on gasoline or crude oil. Economists and policy experts across the political spectrum think it's a good idea. And with gasoline prices falling, now might be the perfect time to do it without eliciting cries of pain from U.S. drivers who have become somewhat accustomed to high fuel prices.

But on the long road to a new energy policy, the idea of a higher gasoline or crude-oil tax is just another bit of roadkill.

And if the NYT’s parade of smarties wasn’t enough for you, here’s another one for the list:

Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard economics professor and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. "A sharp hike in energy taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels would not only help improve the government's balance sheet, but it would also be a way to start addressing global warming."

Even the Wall Street Journal gets in on the act by publishing a piece by former Bush economist Greg Mankiw:

With the midterm election around the corner, here's a wacky idea you won't often hear from our elected leaders: We should raise the tax on gasoline.

Piece reprinted here.

Some of my arguments against the hike here.

As voters in California consider two water infrastructure and park bonds on the November ballot, Prop. 1E and Prop. 84, a state Department of Finance audit finds that “only a small fraction of the $10 billion from four environmental bonds voters passed between 2000 and 2002” was misappropriated by a software glitch (Dept. of Water Resources), spent on Red Carpet Club membership (Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy), or used to pay for yoga classes (state Coastal Conservancy). In some muckraking no doubt inspired by the anti-yoga lobby, the Contra Costa Times reports:

The state Coastal Conservancy spent $38,000 in bond funds for questionable purposes, including $29,000 for lobbying in Washington, $5,000 for employee transit subsidies and $3,500 for employee yoga and weight-loss programs in the fiscal year ending June 2005, according to an audit report in March. The conservancy agreed to reimburse the bond funds.

The head of the state Coastal Conservancy, Samuel Schuchat, said his agency's spending on improper items amounted to a small fraction of 1 percent of the $431 million the agency has spent.

Schuchat told auditors that if other funds were unavailable, it would be justifiable to use bond money for employee benefits, including yoga, weight-loss programs and transit. But he backed off that stance in an interview.

"We will not spend bond money for yoga classes," he said. "People will make mistakes and the auditors will hopefully find them so we can fix them. ... That's why you do audits."

So I guess the lesson is, as long as the fraction of environmental bond money spent on yoga classes is less than 1 percent, everything’s good. With Props. 1E and 84 adding up to about $9.5 billion, we’ve got $90,000,000 to spend on yoga classes!

Last week an attorney representing taxpayer interests sent a request to Attorney General Lockyer asking for the recovery of funds allegedly misappropriated by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Conveniently, California law also allows bond funds to be used to reimburse legal expenses.

Years ago, right-wing funnyman P.J. O’Rourke wrote a very clever book about American politics. The title said it all: Parliament of Whores.

Now a left-wing Aussie has published a book that examines politics down under. The title of Mark Latham's book is similarly straightforward: Conga Line of Suckholes.

Latham doesn’t focus solely on politics. He also worries about the dearth of Steve Irwins, the wussification of the Australian male:

"One of the saddest things I have seen in my lifetime has been the decline in Australian male culture - the loss of our larrikin language and values," he writes. "Australian mates and good blokes have been replaced by nervous wrecks, metrosexual knobs and tossbags."

It seems fitting that this former prime ministerial candidate would worry about such things. He did, after all, break a cabbie’s arm in a drunken fare dispute a few years back.

Kind of interesting that Latham’s coming from the left, blaming (at least partly) neoconservatism. Often lamentations about withering manliness come from the right and the targets are often “bed-wetting lefties” and the like.

Facing criticism that city building permit officials gave special treatment to politically connected applicants, the Los Angeles Building and Safety Department announced Tuesday that it is drafting new standards to ensure that all members of the public are treated the same.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa requested the action in response to a Times report that dozens of construction projects sought by political insiders had been assigned to a little-known "case management unit." The unit is designed to speed the permit process, saving applicants time, bureaucratic frustration and money.
…

The Times last month reported that the department had given special treatment to projects sought over the last year by dozens of insiders, including nine current and former city commissioners and donors to the mayor and City Council.

…

Building and Safety officials have repeatedly denied that department decisions are influenced by whether an applicant is a city commissioner or political donor. And at Tuesday's commission meeting, Adelman emphasized that he was acting only because of the mayor's request.

…

The Times report also raised concerns among City Hall watchdog groups.

Tracy Westen, chief executive of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, said it is not fair that the average resident has to navigate red tape to get a permit, while the politically connected are assigned a case manager who calls a meeting of representatives from all involved departments to expedite approval of projects.

Article here.

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has a pretty tranquil life these days, at least compared to what he went through a couple of years ago.

As chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors he uttered the completely mainstream comment (mainstream among economists, that is) that international trade is a good thing that tends to benefit all nations involved. He said that offshore outsourcing is merely a new kind of trade in which exports come to our shores via the internet or our phones, instead of by ships and planes.

Many reporters simply yawned at what was then regarded as an uneventful press conference. Then the LA Times ran a story titled “Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.”

What followed was a (cliché alert) political firestorm. Our nation worried that the teachings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo no longer applied to our new economy. Speaker Hastert called for Mankiw’s head and Candidate Kerry had himself a great issue. He railed against “Benedict Arnold CEOs” and outrageous tax policies that supposedly encouraged this kind of traitorous activity. Politicians penned more than 200 anti-outsourcing bills, mostly at the state level (although few were passed).

Today the panic has largely subsided, at least for now.

In this paper Mankiw looks back at that loopy time. Pretty interesting stuff.

Related: A study Adrian Moore and I wrote on the topic

Related: My pre-election take on Kerry-Edwards’ rhetorical strategy

BTW, later on Kerry backed away somewhat from his infamous line:

Asked about outsourcing and his use of the "Benedict Arnold" epithet, Mr. Kerry replied: "The Benedict Arnold line applied, you know, I called a couple of times to overzealous speechwriters and said, 'Look, that's not what I'm saying.' Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that. I was referring to the people who take advantage of non-economic transactions purely for tax purposes — sham transactions — and give up American citizenship. That's a Benedict Arnold. You give up your American citizenship but you want to continue to do business and deduct and do everything else. That's what I'm referring to."

Actually, it seems this explanation isn’t entirely accurate.

But more importantly--does Ben Affleck still think outsourcing is "criminal"?

As we mark the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's devastating landfall today, it is fitting that we look at the progress that has been made in rebuilding the region--and the lack of progress. As Harry Mount explains in a recent article for the UK's Daily Telegraph, there have been stark differences in the rebuilding effort between the public and private sectors:

[W]hile private business has flourished, public works have failed miserably. Schools are only just opening. University departments have been closed for good. Courtrooms don't have enough judges to deal with the renaissance of America's murder capital.

Mount continues:

This mismatch between private and public has nothing to do with shortage of public money; after Katrina, President Bush promised £58 billion ($110 billion) in federal aid for the victims. New Orleans and its crooked ways are partly to blame. Only this weekend, a pair of Bobcat excavators worth £50,000 ($95,000) were stolen from the Lower Ninth Ward, one of the hardest-hit areas of the city, where they were being used to build a memorial to the victims of Katrina.

But the chief culprit is a federal government clogged with bureaucracy and indecision, incapable of spending money even when it's got tons of the stuff.

The American government can just about arrange an orgy in a brothel -- fraudulent applications for Katrina aid were spent on champagne and prostitutes -- but it is hopeless when it comes to large-scale federal construction projects.

This paralyzing bureaucracy is not limited to Katrina recovery efforts, either. As Mount notes, the same maladies have impaired rebuilding efforts at the World Trade Center site as well.

In the five years since September 11, one building, 7 World Trade Centre, the third and least-known skyscraper to collapse that day, is the only one to have been rebuilt.

At 7 WTC, the site's leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, worked unencumbered by the attentions of government. As a result, the £350 million ($665 million), 52-storey tower went up this May without a hitch.

A couple of hundred yards from 7 WTC, Ground Zero is still a great big empty concrete tub.

Mr Silverstein owns the lease to the Ground Zero pit and the rights to rebuild all the space lost within it. But, while 7 World Trade Centre is outside the pit and entirely under his control, construction inside the pit is run by government, principally George Pataki, the outgoing governor of New York State.

We should take these lessons to heart when we consider options for rebuilding of the Gulf Coast, the World Trade Center site, and future disaster areas. It is not government planning, but market forces, that allow for the quickest, most appropriate, and most economical recovery of disaster areas. People and businesses will seek opportunities to invest their resources and offer their services where they are most needed--if only government will get out of the way and let them do it.

In a column for The Wall Street Journal today, Reason's Leonard Gilroy Given examines Jane Jacobs's legacy and how today's urban planners continue to misinterpret her work.

Sadly, many in the Smart Growth and New Urbanism movements cite Jacobs as the inspiration for their efforts to combat so-called 'urban sprawl' and make over suburbia with dense, walkable downtowns, mixed-use development, and varied building styles. While Jacobs identified these as organic elements of successful cities, planners have eagerly tried to impose them on cities in formulaic fashion, regardless of their contextual appropriateness and compatibility with the underlying economic order. In short, they've taken Jacobs's observations of what makes cities work and tried to formalize them into an authoritarian recipe for policy intervention.

As Jacobs opined in a 2001 Reason magazine interview, "the New Urbanists want to have lively centers in the places that they develop. . . . And yet, from what I've seen of their plans and the places they have built, they don't seem to have a sense of the anatomy of these hearts, these centers. They've placed them as if they were shopping centers. They don't connect."

Jacobs's ideas came from the heart. Her foray into urban theory was partly inspired by the failed urban renewal efforts of the post-World War II era that displaced tens of thousands of poor and minority residents and resulted in the isolation or destruction of previously vibrant neighborhoods in New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh and elsewhere.

Full Column at OpinionJournal.com (no subscription req'd)

Reason magazine Interview with Jane Jacobs in 2001 here.

In a column for The Wall Street Journal today, Reason's Leonard Gilroy Given examines Jane Jacobs's legacy and how today's urban planners continue to misinterpret her work.

Sadly, many in the Smart Growth and New Urbanism movements cite Jacobs as the inspiration for their efforts to combat so-called 'urban sprawl' and make over suburbia with dense, walkable downtowns, mixed-use development, and varied building styles. While Jacobs identified these as organic elements of successful cities, planners have eagerly tried to impose them on cities in formulaic fashion, regardless of their contextual appropriateness and compatibility with the underlying economic order. In short, they've taken Jacobs's observations of what makes cities work and tried to formalize them into an authoritarian recipe for policy intervention.

As Jacobs opined in a 2001 Reason magazine interview, "the New Urbanists want to have lively centers in the places that they develop. . . . And yet, from what I've seen of their plans and the places they have built, they don't seem to have a sense of the anatomy of these hearts, these centers. They've placed them as if they were shopping centers. They don't connect."

Jacobs's ideas came from the heart. Her foray into urban theory was partly inspired by the failed urban renewal efforts of the post-World War II era that displaced tens of thousands of poor and minority residents and resulted in the isolation or destruction of previously vibrant neighborhoods in New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh and elsewhere.

Full Column at OpinionJournal.com (no subscription req'd)

Reason magazine Interview with Jane Jacobs in 2001 here.

According to a recent Pew Research survey, 9 percent of Americans are libertarian.

Who are these people?

Libertarians are much more likely to be male (59%) and young (33% are under age 30) than are any of the other groups.

And forget about the Red state-Blue state dichotomy:

almost six-in-ten Americans fall into one of the four ideological groups; 18% are liberals, 15% are conservatives, 16% are populists, and 9% are libertarians.

And the biggest group?

The remainder included people with a mixture of views, or who declined to offer opinions on several of the six questions in the test; this large non-ideological group (42%) is labeled the "ambivalents."

More here.

We often think of the welfare state as government programs and spending. Yet, regulation can have even more debilitating effects on the economy, investment and entrepreneurship. This is implied in an essay today in the New York Times.

The author is a Morrocan Fench national and novelist. The point he makes, however, is that France is paralyzed by a welfare state that has created an illusion of stability and security. This has created a gulf between leaders--who understand the need for change--and the public, who are so vested in the welfare state they are fearful of anything that might threaten their highly regulated world.

France lives today, more than ever, in a utopian fantasy. The gap between the political leadership and the people is enormous. The elites seem to speak to us of outdated concepts, far, very far from reality. France can't deal with its "foreigners" who have French nationality and does little to integrate them into society. Islam is the second religion of the country, yet France cannot speak intelligently to its millions of Muslims; it calls us all the "Muslim community" as if there were only one way to be a Muslim.

France knows that it needs to change its economic system, but each attempt is blocked, as it was this week with Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's bid to encourage businesses to give jobs to young people by loosening the strict labor laws governing their hiring and firing. It's often said that the French are all grumblers, and that cliché is more than true.

While the students who have been in the streets are right to protest against the precarious life that awaits them, it's also true that the French are timid, even frightened of change, as we saw last year in their strong reaction against the entry of Turkey into an enlarged European Union. Turkey, long considered part of Europe, suddenly didn't qualify, in the French view, for the rights and privileges of the union.

The regulatory welfare state effectively politicizes all aspects of the economy, making entrepreneurship and dynamism almost impossible.

The same effects can be seen in local communities in America where zoning and urban planning has created the illusion of security and stability. So-called community "visioning", combined with a host of strict regulatory controls on land use, create static places that are resistant to the changes necessary to make them competitive and adaptable in a dynamic environment.

Reason Foundation's Shikha Dalmia says the battle over the morning-after pill is the latest proof that "both modern-day conservatives and liberals in America are eagerly unleashing big government on each other—a la the French."

Alexis de Tocqueville and the Full Column Here

Following up on the blogs and op/eds this week on Bush's attack on our addiction to oil.

He rolled out the goal "to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." That sounds bold, but as Glassman points out in the article from my previous post, only 10% of our petroleum use comes from the Middle East. So he is calling for a 7.5% change in oil use--some combination of shifts to other sources or reductions in use. Not as big as many people probably thought listening to his speech, but still no small matter, considering we consumer more oil each year and import more oil as well (see here).

Bush specifically flogged ethanol and hydrogen, and of course, the alternative fuels folks had orgasms. Ethanol boosters of various stripes have been crowing non stop.

Alas, things are not all rosy for ethanol. It takes so much oil to produce ethanol, ship it, and to backfill for its lower energy output, that using more ethanol might increase our need for oil. At best it will only replace a very small amount of oil. See more here.

And there there is hydrogen. Many people either don't know or ignore that hydrogen is not a fuel lying around in the ground waiting for us to pump it out and burn it. Hydrogen has to be made using electricity (which is often made using oil or natural gas and transported using oil, etc. (for more on hydrogen production see here.)

My colleague Lynn Kiesling did a nice 5-part analysis of the promise and pitfalls of the hydrogen economy. Check it out.

In an op-ed in today's The Wall Street Journal, Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey details the long list of failed presidential plans that were supposed to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil. From Richard Nixon's use of taxpayer money to develop "an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution-free automobile within five years" to Gerald Ford's Energy Policy and Conservation Act to Jimmy Carter's creation of the U.S. Department of Energy...and the list goes on... Bailey writes:

"In May 2001, after California experienced a series of rolling blackouts, Dick Cheney's national energy task force starkly declared: 'America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s.' In his 2003 State of the Union message, President Bush pledged 'to promote energy independence for our country.' He also announced his $1.2 billion FreedomCAR proposal, to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles. But despite these bold proclamations, the only way we've ever cut back on imported oil is in response to higher prices.

World oil prices peaked in real terms in 1980 at about $90 per barrel. In 1977, U.S. imports were 6.6 million barrels per day. By 1985, imports had been cut in half to 3.2 million barrels. Why? Simple economics: Higher prices boosted domestic production and reduced consumption. And despite more than 30 years of government-sponsored initiatives only about a half-million alternative fuel vehicles roam America's highways, and none are wholly electric or hydrogen powered. Today's higher prices will do far more to free us from dependence on foreign oil imports and spur energy technology innovation than any federal program ever will -- even a so-called Advanced Energy Initiative."

Full Column Here

At www.reason.com, Reason magazine’s Jesse Walker examines all the new spending proposals coming from a “conservative” president and writes, "if you could transmit W.'s domestic rhetoric back to the middle of the century, there would be little there to offend a northeastern Democrat."

Full Column