Wow! An update and a link!

This cross-linking thing is sometimes gratuitous, and I imagine it's for folks with a lot more time on their hands than me. But anyway, here it is:

Proudly Neocon

Supporting the Liberation of Iraq

In the pursuit of a safer world where citizens determine their own government and destiny, some ask, "Why Iraq? Who's to say where we start? What about North Korea? What about Iran? What about Syria?" They've got the right list. We had to start somewhere, so why not Iraq?

Saddam for decades showed a willingness and propensity for depriving and murdering hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. In a country that is one of the world's richest in history and oil, the cultural infrastructure was destroyed instead of improved. Physical infrastructure was addressed only where it benefited the regime. Yes, even while Saddam had America's realpolitik support in his war against Iran, a country newly dangerous to us, he continued to gas his citizens rather than recognize their God-given right to determine their own fate.

Saddam was a monster that someone had to stop. I require no other reason to support his demise. His neighbors, in the name of Arab Identity and from fear of their own repressed citizens, refused. Europeans, who suffer a lack of moral clarity, couldn't. Russia, just recovering from the death of Soviet communism, could not be trusted nor showed a desire to solve the problem. Only America could stop Saddam.

In 1988, I voted for President George H. W. Bush. Then in 1992, for two reasons, I did not. One reason I didn't vote for President Bush's re-election was his inability to effectively address the recession in either real or bully pulpit cheerleading terms.

The other reason was Bush 41 did not have the balls to finish the fight during the Gulf War. Ejecting Iraq from Kuwait was an honorable mission expertly executed. Colin Powell's coalition was masterfully constructed. But not marching to Baghdad and capturing Saddam in 1991 with or without Arab support, allowing Saddam's army access to the air by deadly helicopter, then failing to support the native revolt against the Baathists sentenced tens of thousands more innocent Iraqis to death, and prolonged the struggle in Iraq right through the present day.

The war we are fighting in Iraq today is an honorable mission of utmost importance, but it is a war only made necessary by Bush 41's failure. Though I have significant disagreements with the current president, I am glad George W. Bush has the balls his father lacked to finish the job in Iraq.

Marijuana is not Medicine

The US Supreme Court recently rejected California's "medical marijuana" law. Some have argued that this oversteps states' right, others that it's insensitive to people who are suffering illness.

Idealists worried about federal meddling in local drug laws have years of regulations, case law, and precedent to fight. The federal government has been involved in regulating both legal and illegal drug use for more than a century. That involvement does not need to end.

The true ulterior motive behind "medical marijuana" laws is the surreptitious legalization of recreational drugs. The claim that marijuana smoke is the only substance that increases appetite for patients with AIDS or on chemotherapy is specious. Some claim a pill would be immediately regurgitated if swallowed without a bong hit. They conveniently overlook the success of inhalers and nebulizers to effectively administer medicines. The attempt to legalize pot on the backs of the terminally ill is crass.

I am a federalist, but I am also a conservative. Governments at the state and federal levels do have a role in regulating drug use.

I am also a libertarian. Those who want recreational drugs legalized should simply be honest about it and work to change state and federal laws. The government could license, tax and regulate recreational drugs with laws similar to those that apply to alcohol, tobacco, or prescription drugs. Drug manufacturers would turn illicit growers, traders and vendors into industry assets overnight. Drug companies would make the content and acquisition of recreational drugs safer; police, prisons and the courts would be able to better focus on fighting violent crime; and the profit motive would reduce potencies to the level of a smooth buzz, no more addictive or impairing than alcohol or nicotine. Recovery services such as Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous already exist to deal with substance abuse and dependency.

I don't use illegal recreational drugs, so I'm not motivated to be active in legalizing them other than to say I believe the rule of law is one of the most important aspects of our culture: as long as something is illegal, it should not be done. Breaking the law is not an acceptable tactic in changing the law.

Blogging Hiatus

I haven't posted for a while. Here's my explanation: blogs are getting out of control with personal attacks, piling on, and basically not adding to a constructive conversation.

Sure blogs have introduced much needed media criticism, and have been responsible for exposing some important bias that would otherwise be whitewashed over: Raines at the NY Times, or forged memos from CBS. But other topics border on talk-radio bitterness. Who cares if a bald, gay hustler is also a reporter for a conservative web site? Why does the whole nation need to beat up on him? Who cares if some stupid, obscure professor (who even I have commented on below) is an offensive, stark raving mad Marxist poser? When the president of an ivy league university (who I've also commented on) suggests that we should be open to any and all reasons why women aren't in more science and math roles, why does immediate knee-jerk opposition to even thinking about the issue need to be heard around the world?

Blogs that allow reader comments on their stories are the worst perpetrators of the personal attack piling on. Just try wading through the conspiracy ravings at the Democratic Underground, the me-too-ism at Lucianne, the personal attacks on AmericaBLOG, the invasion of privacy at BlogActive. Yahoos simply want to pile on and post rants that generally run counter to a sane discussion of any issue. In those comments you'll find the worst of personal attacks, posting personal information, and harassment. It's just useless noise.

I started this blog not to rail against the idiot of the day, but just to put out ideas I'd been thinking through for a while. That's why I don't typically link to other news stories. That's why I intended this to be a low-volume blog. That's why I don't let folks comment on my posts via machine. I would love to hear constructive feedback about my ideas. But sorry dear reader, the signal to noise ratio is too low on the internet.

On Election Financing

Election finance "reform" attempts to reduce the influence of special interests on elections. I'm all for that, but I also recognize that water will seek its level. Money will find a way. In addition, artificially controlling donations to any political candidate, campaign, party or cause is a clear infringement on the right to unfettered political speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. I reproduce that Amendment in full here.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My proposal for election financing includes no artificial, anti-market controls and employs full transparency to enable political market forces to control who gives how much to whom.

1. Only eligible human voters may donate to candidates for election, political parties, or campaigns that attempt to influence public policy.

2. Donations may be in any amount, and made as frequently or seldom as the donor may wish.

3. No non-human entities (corporations, etc.) may donate any amount to any candidates for election, political party, or campaign that attempts to influence public policy.

4. All donations, no matter how small or frequent, will be reported in a public forum, such as the Internet, as they are received.

Item 1 excludes donations from foreign sources, or those who have not attained full citizenship, or have had their civil rights revoked (for committing a felony, as an example.) However, I am open to the idea that any law-abiding resident of this country, not just citizen voters, could legally donate.

Item 2 eliminates the need to shuffle money to employees or family members to increase a donor's total giving potential.

Item 3 addresses concerns about undue influence by lobbyists. However, a CEO, board members, or other officers and employees would still be able to donate any amount, somewhat limiting the benefits of this restriction. I am open to removing this rule.

Item 4 is the key to accountability for this whole scheme. It's based on the expectation that a candidate or party will research the opposition's donors and donations, bringing potentially embarrassing contributions to light. For example, a populist candidate running on the "little guy" platform could embarrass an opponent who takes large contributions from wealthy donors. A party that emphasizes cultural values could point to a preponderance of donations by Hollywood producers and celebs to the opposing party or candidates.

Unlimited donation amounts and full transparency are the keys to creating a public market for political finance.

Resources

Here are some web sites that already use FEC or public disclosures to help voters see who's getting money from whom:

• Change Congress - Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School


• Fundrace - Look up who your neighbors are donating to, from the liberal Huffinton Post site


• Opensecrets - Center for Responsive Politics' site

On a Flat Tax

The current US income tax code is bloated and filled with money for special interests, within and outside of the government, and must be simplified. Taxes are necessary for a government to administer its functions, but that doesn't mean they should be onerous or seemingly arbitrary.

Some components of the tax code have unintended consequences (well-meaning child tax credits that get spent on big screen TVs rather than food, clothing, and education), have unfair inconsistencies (the marriage tax, where couples filing jointly pay more than if they filed separately), or intentionally kick families while they're down (by the inheritance or "death" tax). The escalating scale that increases taxes on those who work diligently to improve their lot in life and earn more is immoral.

Other tax policies attempt to reinforce beneficial behavior (for example, the mortgage interest deduction that encourages home ownership). Special dispensations written into the current code are misplaced. Beneficial behavior should be encouraged on its merits, not encouraged by bribery.

A predictable tax environment is necessary to efficiently run any business or plan any family's budget. At the same time, liberals exert pressure to raise federal, state and local minimum wages with willful disregard for the laws of the marketplace and the long term effects on labor flexibility.

Something must be done to simplify the US income tax, and control the upward pressure on mandated minimum wages.

Sales taxes affect people unequally based on their consumption, and have the effect of discouraging purchases, thereby reducing the velocity of money through the economy. European value added taxes (VAT) are similar to a sales tax added at each stage of production, with the added insidious nature of being hidden from view: out of sight, out of mind. Hidden taxes such as VAT, or gasoline taxes included in advertised per-gallon prices, are too easily raised.

As sales taxes are often the only source of income for local municipalities, cities and towns too often resort to the tactic of increasing sprawl to create new opportunities for retail which can be taxed.

I also recognize that some folks need to be helped along as they start careers, or in times of need. The tax code should still account for some amount of welfare, or remittances to low income families.

Here's my proposal for a fair tax system for individuals. This could be extended to corporations (though I'll save the discussion of double taxation and whether companies should be taxed at all for a later time).

1. No sales taxes, no VAT. No hidden taxes!

2. Revenue from each taxpayer is shared proportionately at all political levels the taxpayer inhabits: federal, state, county, city. To collect more money, governments must help their citizens earn more money

3. A flat income tax is based on all income from all sources, with no deductions. And no loopholes!

4. The poverty level is defined as a typical annual salary (2080 hours) at minimum wage. This amount is subtracted from total income.

5. A low fixed percentage (defined either constitutionally or legislatively) of the resulting adjusted income becomes either the tax owed (positive amounts), or the welfare received (negative amounts).

6. The tax (or welfare) could be collected (or paid) in quarterly, monthly, semi-weekly, or weekly installments to simplify financial planning.

Here are some example:

- If minimum wage were $6.00 per hour, the poverty level would be $12,480 per year.

- A person who earned $46,000 at a 10% flat tax rate would owe $3,352 in taxes.

- A person who earned $1,000,000 at 10% flast tax would owe $98,752.

- A person earning minimum wage would pay no taxes.

- A person who earned $5,000 at a 10% flat tax rate would be paid $748 in welfare.

This system is fair to the aspirations of all earners, while not burdening those making minimum wage with any taxes whatsoever. It has an added benefit of eliminating tax loopholes, with the effect of keeping down the tax rate.

(Note to those who are stuck on unfair, "progressive," increasing-scale tax rates: even this flat tax is ever so slightly progressive due to the fixed deduction. The million dollar earner actually pays at a 9.8752% rate, while the $46K earner actually pays at a 8.38% rate. The same relationship is true for any given nominal flat tax rate, though exact resulting rates will differ.)

Catching Up: On Larry Summers

Lawrence Summers is a former Clinton administration official, and the current President of Harvard University, a private school. Summers has come under fire for suggesting at a recent conference that physiological differences between men and women may somehow cause women to be less successful in maths and sciences. Summers has apologized time and time again to the politically correct police, seemingly to no avail.

My view on his comments is that, at worst, they are a waste of time. Summers' suggestion has likely been disproved or minimized by research.

There can be no doubt about actual physiological differences between men and women: just drop the pants or lift the skirt for evidence! However, as someone who had to struggle with the difficult coming out process which requires you to readdress accepted gender roles, it is also obvious to me that men and women are subtly (and not so subtly) expected to fill certain roles from childhood by their parents, friends, and every other human on earth.

The human mind excels at categorization. Cultures around the world have found benefits in efficiencies created by allowing assumptions about the roles of strangers and friends alike. For some reason, Western culture has generally found an efficiency in something as analytically arbitrary as men wearing pants and women wearing skirts, or driving on the right side of the road. As with any rule, these assumptions will have any number of exceptions, may be counterproductive, or even proven wrong.

The subtle nature and constant reinforcement of cultural roles can make them feel as if they are actually laws of nature, rather than nurture. Though physiological differences between the brains and bodies of men and women do exist, culture cannot and should not be discounted. Women should be encouraged to excel in traditionally male enterprises, and men should be encouraged to excel in traditionally female enterprise. We've got plenty of work to go around.

This is not to argue that any cultural norm should be arbitrarily discounted or discarded just because it is widely or narrowly held, or even truly useless. The social contract we enter into in order to make sense of our world requires that we maintain mores, taboos, laws, and even presumptions about our relationships with the people around us. But on matters of whether men or women can apply themselves to various areas of endeavor, we should expect only the best.

Larry Summers should not be fired for simply wasting time.