If you'd like to submit your blog for membership in the Neolibertarian
Network, click here for the submission
guidelines. If you would like to submit an article or essay for consideration
in The New Libertarian, click
here for article submission guidelines.
George Packer is wondering if a military intervention for forcibly deliver relief supplies to Burma is needed.
Forcing the regime to let the rest of the world save its people would have a devastating effect on morale. Burma's leaders are so isolated and irrational that they actually believe their own propaganda about being the only group that can hold the country together. It's possible that the junta would collapse out of sheer humiliation. It's also possible, though it seems unlikely to me, that Burmese military units would be ordered to engage the foreigners. Shots might be fired, people might be killed. No one knows what will happen if British sailors and American airmen arrive on soggy Burmese soil. Hanging over the question is, of course, Iraq. No one expects an intervention to go smoothly anymore; now we expect it to go terribly wrong. I doubt the American, British, French, Australian, and other governments, with or without U.N. consent, will decide to invade Burma with boxes of oral rehydration kits and high-energy biscuits. But if the fear of Baghdad and Falluja is what keeps foreign powers from saving huge numbers of Burmese from their own government's callousness, that will be one more tragic consequence of the Iraq war.
It's certainly troubling to see thousands die from the deliberate malfeasance of a paranoid, authoritarian regime. it's troubling to have to shrug our shoulders, and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do. It's their country."
Even worse, though, would be to set up the principle of the acceptability of 'forced humanitarian interventions".
Who decides when such interventions are necessary? Who does the intervening? What constitutes the "bright line" between acceptable an unacceptable interventions?
In real terms, life in much of the developing world is nasty, brutish and short. Governments have a large hand in making it so,bit, then again, so does culture, economics, tribalism, and a host of other deplorable conditions.
Historically, the "bright line" has been national interest. nations intervene in the affairs of others when it is in their interest to do so. Now, that's not a high-minded reason, nor is it a standard that is immune to abuse. But in general, h national interest standard tends to deter abuse. If a nation cannot credibly make the national interest argument, it tends to be labeled an aggressor, which opens it up to the possibility of forceful resistance from other states.
The humanitarian standard, on the other hand, is nearly illimitable. In many nations in Africa, Asia, and South America, there are innumerable humanitarian reasons for intervention. Do we invade Zimbabwe to prevent Robert Mugabe from completely cratering the country? Do we invade Israel to relieve the suffering of the poor Palestinians?
We would do well to remember that we are talking about sending soldiers in to kill foreigners. The Kaplokistanis aren't providing enough earthquake assistance? Well, let's go in and kill some Kaplokistanis to bring relief to other Kaplokistanis. The conscript soldiers that get whacked when we go in? Oh, well. Omelettes. Eggs. You know.
It is the business of the Kaplokistani government to govern the country, and the business of the Kaplokistani people to object forcefully if that government is not to their liking.
Once get into the business of deciding that we have some responsibility to act directly on behalf of the Kaplokistani people, what we have really done is to declare that we in principle have the right—as long as a sufficient number of other nations agree—that we can overthrow any government that displeases us for any reason.
I'm pretty sure that the results of that kind of operating principle would devolve into serious unpleasantness, and do so in ways that we might not like at all.
The conventional wisdom has it that Clinton did herself major damage Tuesday night by getting blown out in North Carolina. I completely agree. This hurt her with the pledged delegate count. Much more important, I think, is that it hurt her with the popular vote count, which she must win to press an argument with the superdelegates.
However, it is possible that she could counter Tuesday's blowout with two big blowouts of her own in the next two weeks. This could undo most of the damage done by her big loss in North Carolina, and put her back on track.
West Virginia is 95% white, and one of the poorest states in the nation. Demographically, Pennsylvania's twelfth congressional district is a decent proxy of it. Clinton won Pennsylvania's twelfth by 46 points. A recent Rasmussen survey put her up 29 points in the Mountaineer State, with 17% undecided. Another poll had her up 40 points, with Obama under 25%.
He illustrates how deeply into Clinton Country WV and KY are via this graphic:
Clinton counties are in blue, Obama Counties are in green. The black bordered area? Well, that, my friends, is Clinton Country.
White, rural, blue-collar Democrats.
Obama is an Urban, progressive candidate, essentially, and he doesn't resonate with blue collar Democrats.
So, the real question as we move towards the preidential election, is whether those blue counties will stay with Obama in November, should he become the nominee, or whether they will go for McCain, instead.
If I was making predictions, I'd think that an Obama candidacy, if the voting were being held today, would look like this:
Somehow, in a year where the Democrats were going to run away with everything, according to conventional wisdom, it looks as if the Republicans have selected the only candidate that can possibly win the presidency, and the Democrats are choosing between two candidates with an excellent chance of losing.
In this podcast, Bruce McQuain and Dale Franks discuss the Democratic nomination race, the tragedy in Myanmar (Burma), and Iraq's Security Forces move into Sadr City.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal get it exactly right.
This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion - or perhaps we should say cynicism - of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?
We covered this on the podcast today, but I wanted to highlight it.
This is not policy leadership. It's not even policy. It is utter irrationality. It is an abject surrender to fantasy, rather than a reasoned approach to anything that even approaches a policy.
It is the wailing of a spoiled child, who thinks the world can be made to be what he wishes it to be, rather than what it is.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.
In this podcast, Bruce McQuain and Dale Franks discuss discuss the Democratic primary results in Pennsylvania, as well as this week's military personnel changes at CENTCOM and in Iraq.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.
Well, for those of you who keep up with the goings on at the other place, this isn't news. But, I've moved on from the noise, vibration, and mediocre power of the Harley.
The Sporty is gone, and the new FJR1300AE is sitting in the garage.
Moving from 70HP to 146HP has been interesting. Interesting learning how to maneuver at slow speeds without a clutch, too. But I certainly don't miss clutching in heavy traffic.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.
Today is an important day in American history. It is not, oddly, a day we commemorate in any particular way. But April 19th, 1775, is the day American independence truly began. Because today is the day the country began fighting for it.
In the evening of April 18th, General Thomas Gage ordered Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith to take command of 10 elite light infantry companies under Major John Pitcairn and 11 grenadier companies under Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin Bernard. Col. Smith as given sealed orders, and instructed by Gen. Gage to embark his men across the Charles River from Boston, and march them to the east. Once the march was under way, Col. Smith was to open his sealed orders and carry them out.
Four days previously, Gage had finally received orders from Lord Dartmouth, the British Secretary of State, to disband the Massachusetts militia, impound their arms, and arrest the rebellious ringleaders of Boston's disobedient citizenry.
The orders given to Col. Smith were considered most secret by Gage. Col. Smith's 700 regulars were ordered to make a quick march at night, so as to retain the element of surprise, and to proceed "with utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy. all Military stores. But you will take care that the soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants or hurt private property."
Secrecy, however, was not a strong suit of Gage's headquarters. His orders from Lord Dartmouth had already been transmitted from London to the rebellion's ringleaders in Boston by sources in London, weeks before Gage even received them. Moreover, his new Jersey-born wife, Margaret, was in all likelihood passing on information from inside his own house. The militia powder, shot, and cannon at Concord had already been removed from the armory, and secreted about the countryside (although, as it turned out, they weren't all secreted well enough to prevent some of them from being found).
Gage passed on his orders to Smith at about 8:30. The troops were assembled soon after, and by 10:00 pm, departed Boston Common for barges waiting for them on the banks of the Charles.
As the troops were departing, one of Gage's subordinates, Hugh, Earl Percy, took a stroll through the town. As he did so, he heard a number of people discussing the troop movements. When Percy asked one of the people what he thought of the activity, he received the reply, "Well, the regulars will miss their aim".
"What aim?" asked Percy.
"Why, the cannon at Concord" was the reply.
Percy immediately reported this to Gen. Gage. Stunned, Gage issued orders to have the entire 1st Brigade under arms, and ready to march at 4:00am.
It was too late. The rebellion's ringleaders had all departed Boston except for Joseph Warren, Paul Revere, and Charles Dawes. As the British were preparing to March, Warren dispatched Dawes to ride south, across the Boston Neck and across the Great Bridge to Lexington and sound the alarm. Paul Revere was to cross the Mystic River to the north, and do likewise, meeting Dawes in Concord or Lexington. Dawes left immediately, and Revere shortly after, stopping only to give word to place signal lanterns in the belfry of the Old North Church, to signal Charlestown that the British were on the march.
For the British marching with Col. Smith, it quickly became obvious that they had lost the element of surprise. As Revere and Dawes rode ahead of them, the British kept hearing the sounds of the alarm being given. As they reached Lexington at Dawn, the militia was already turned out.
John Parker, the milita commander, however, had ordered his men to stand fast, not to molest the British, and to let them pass. When Major Pitcairn rode forward, and saw the militia, he advanced to the head of his troops, and, and shouted, "Disperse, you rebels; damn you, throw down your arms and disperse!"
In the noise and confusion, not all of the militia began to disperse. Those that did, simply began going home, but none of them laid down their arms. Both Parker and Pitcairn ordered their men not to open fire, but someone—who, and from what side is not known—fired a shot. This was "the shot heard 'round the world", and to this day, no one knows who fired it.
A desultory scattering of fire commenced on both sides. Then, without orders, the British infantry began giving volley fire, followed by a bayonet charge. After a brief mauling, the Lexington militia began to quickly disperse.
The British then marched to Concord. As they closed on the town, the concord militia, under the command of Colonel James Barrett, began a series of retreats that let them keep the British under observation, while keeping out of range of the British guns. They knew that something had happened at Lexington, but no clear reports of what had actually transpired.
Meanwhile, with the help of Concord loyalists who pointed out the hiding places of three cannon, some shot, and other supplies, the British searched Concord. They threw the cannon, supplies and shot into the Concord River, and burned the gun carriages.
Upon seeing the smoke from the fires, Col. Barret feared that the British were firing the town, so he led the militia back. As they proceeded towards the town, the came across two British companies holding the North Bridge. By this time, the Concord militia company had been met by militia companies from Acton, Bedford, and Lincoln.
Upon seeing the five militia companies marching towards them, the British troops, about 90 in number, began pulling planks off the bridge to prevent the militia from crossing it. The militia the began to quick-march to the bridge to prevent its destruction. The commander of the British detachment, Captain Walter Laurie of the 43rd Regiment of Foot, ordered his men into firing positions.
Inevitably, seeing a force of about 400 militia approaching their detachment, some of the British troops began opening fire. At a range of about 50 yards, the return fire of the Americans was devastating. Even worse, four of the eight officers and sergeants were wounded immediately, along with ten other troopers, and an additional three more killed outright.
Faced with a superior force, the loss of their leadership, and their own inexperience, the British troops panicked and retreated.
Through the remainder of the day, and the next, the British began retreating to Boston, even as reinforcements from the British 1st Brigade began marching to their relief. Eventually, Smith's forces met 1st brigade in Lexington, and the combined force of 1,900 men began retreating the 17 miles to Boston, harrassed by the militia every step of the way.
By the time the British reached the safety of Boston, 73 British soldiers had been killed, 26 were missing, and 174 were wounded. On the American side, 50 had been killed, 5 were missing, and 39 were wounded.
At Concord's North bridge, the British faced 400 armed militiamen. By the end of the day, at Lexington, they were being harried by 4,000. The morning after they arrived back in Boston, General Gage's headquarters city was under siege by 20,000 militiamen.
These militiamen, sponsored by the Continental Congress, became the beginning of the Continental Army.
The war for American independence had begun.
In the aftermath, Gage not only lost the battle of Concord and Lexington, he lost in starting the public relations war that immediately commenced. When word leaked out that General Gage was sending his official report to London, the Congress, who had already collected over 100 depositions describing the battle from the American point of view, dispatched them to London as well.
On a faster ship.
By the time Gage's report arrived, the stories sympathetic to the Americans had been in British newspapers for two weeks.
Assuming likely voters are not now thinking of yet another Republican president simply because John McCain is the only white guy left standing - an excuse as pathetic in its logic as the decision four years ago to return two Texas oil hustlers to the White House because they were not Massachusetts liberals - must mean that tens of millions of Americans have taken leave of their senses.
If not the white-guy syndrome, why would even a shocking minority of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters say they prefer McCain to the other Democrat? How otherwise to explain the nation's widespread bipartisan rejection of the Bush presidency and yet a willingness to let McCain continue in that vein?
The lesser of two evils, perhaps?
In any event, I don't think Americans are unusually stupid, although every time I read a piece by Robert Scheer, I am ever more firmly convinced that someone is.
In this podcast, Bruce McQuain and Dale Franks talk about the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, as well as Barack Obama's poorly-worded statement this week.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here. _______
Ronald Reagan once famously said the for Democrats, the operating policy was, "if it moves, tax it." A California legislator seems determined to live up to that stereotype.
Joe Six-pack will have to pay a lot more to get his buzz on if Assemblyman Jim Beall has his way.
The San Jose Democrat on Thursday proposed raising the beer tax by $1.80 per six-pack, or 30 cents per can or bottle. The current tax is 2 cents per can. That's an increase of about 1,500 percent.
Beall said the tax would generate $2 billion a year to fund health care services, crime prevention and programs to prevent underage drinking and addiction.
Because, as we all know, the fundamental problem is that we just aren't taxed enough. I really liked this, too:
"The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we've accepted that concept with tobacco," Beall said.
So, if I have a single beer in the evening when I get home from work, I'm damaging society.
I keep hoping tar and feathers will come back into vogue. I really do.
I really wonder, sometimes, why crackpottery seems so prevalent these days. Case in point, Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University.
He's been chosen by the UN to report on human rights issues in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Since he has a long-standing record of anti-Israel bias, this, of course, makes him the perfect UN representative in this matter.
On March 26, Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, was named by unanimous vote to a newly created position to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. While Mr. Falk's specialty is human rights and international law, since the attacks in 2001, he has devoted some of his time to challenging what he calls the "9-11 official version."
On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."
Mr. Barrett, who is the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, said in an interview yesterday of Mr. Falk, "I would put him on a list of scholars who are sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement."
He added, "Unlike most public intellectuals today, he is both honest and very, very knowledgeable in that he understands the probable reality of 9/11. He understands that the evidence that it was a false flag operation is very strong."
Ah, the 9/11 Truthers. The antithesis to 500 years of rational and skeptical inquiry. Or, perhaps, rational and skeptical inquiry gone haywire.
On the other hand, in Professor Falk's case, it does seem to be less surprising than it is in some.
In a February 16, 1979, op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Falk praised Ayatollah Khomeini and bemoaned his ill treatment in the American press. He wrote, "The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false."
That, my friends, is a singularly keen analysis. No doubt he brings these same intellectual skills to both the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict and the "9/11 Truth" controversies as well.
But, let's not forget that it isn't just lefties that can go off the deep end. back in the 1990s, when I had my radio show in Los Angeles, I used to interview Morgan Reynolds, who was associated with the national Center for Policy Analysis, was an econ professor at Texas A&M, and who had been the Chief Economist for the labor department in the administration of George H.W. Bush.
Sadly, he's now a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is crackpot central.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.
Steven Bainbridge comments on John McCain's Annapolis speech today.
The speech is also a salutary reminder that McCain is a national greatness conservative rather than either a social or limited government conservative. The trouble with national greatness conservatives is that they need a crusade. Indeed, McCain's speech admits it:
I discovered that nothing in life is more liberating than to fight for a cause that encompasses you but is not defined by your existence alone.
They need some calling that requires the American people to step up to the plate and hit a home run. In short, they need a war. Their paradigm is the so-called greatest generation and the crusade against fascism.
In the absence of war, they will settle for imperialism...
In this light, the claim advanced by some on the left that McCain would represent a third term for George Bush has a certain validity. Like Bush, although perhaps for different reasons, McCain is a big government conservative. If we learned anything from the Bush presidency, however, is that big government conservatism is an oxymoron. Bush has not advanced the conservative agenda. To the contrary, he has left the conservative agenda in shambles. Government is bigger but no more effective.
Read the whole thing. there's a lot there to chew on.
In this podcast, Bruce McQuain and Dale Franks discuss the train crash that is the Democratic Party's nomination process, as well as this week's military action in Iraq.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.
I haven't strayed too deeply into the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama. The surface reactions and counter-reactions are moderately interesting to me as a political junkie, of course, because they effect political outcomes in the nomination race. But this is, really a subject that deserves far more than surface treatment, because it goes directly to the heart of the nation's political and religious culture.
The church which Barack Obama attended—and Rev. Wright pastored—for over two decades, is Trinity united Church of Christ (TUCC). TUCC is a church that espouses "Black Theology", or as it is also commonly known, "Black Liberation Theology". A relatively sympathetic lecture describing black theology is available from Wake forest professor Dr. Terry Mathews PhD, in a transcript of one of his lectures. A more comprehensive, though less sympathetic appraisal is given in an article by Dr. H. Wayne House PhD JD, who is a professor at Faith Evangelical Seminary.
Black Liberation theology is an outgrowth of the more general liberation theology that was developed mainly in the Catholic Church in Latin America. In general liberation theology is an attempt to incorporate Marxism and dialectical materialism into Christianity. The methods for doing so are explicitly political. Black liberation theology shares this same view.
"Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."
Since the 1960s, the various popes, most notably John Paul II, have renounced major portions of liberation theology as being at best inconsistent with orthodox theology, and at worst, heresy.
Liberation theology is not, of course, limited to the Catholic Church. Many mainstream protestant denominations, such as the United Methodist Church, also incorporate it in some degree as well, since it also comports with and expands the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The central problem with liberation theology, from the orthodox point of view, is that it requires political action to redress social and economic "injustice". In other words, it marries political ideology with religion in an unified whole. It requires that the state implement social and economic policies that concord with the divine revelations of religion.
This is practically a textbook definition of theocracy. It is an interesting paradox that many of the same people who decry the religious right's threatening "theocratic" political views endorse themselves an explicitly theocratic viewpoint.
(Presumably, though, they are seeking a good theocracy.)
It is important to note, however, that the idea of liberation theology—black or otherwise—is antithetical to both the American ideal, and to the orthodox interpretation of Christianity.
From the political point of view, America is diametrically opposed to the imposition of any theocratic rule. It is why the Constitution explicitly prohibits both a state religion, or the imposition of any religious test to hold public office. The reason is simple. No matter how benignly or well-intentioned, theocratic rule of any stripe is inherently totalitarian. For it to be sustained for any length of time, the citizenry must be prohibited from espousing opposing views, or implementing opposing policies.
From the religious point of view, liberation theology strikes at the heart of orthodox Christianity's meaning, on a number of levels.
First, it is Christianity that originally enshrined the idea of the separation of church and state. In the Gospel, Christ was approached by the Pharisees, who asked him if it was lawful, in a religious sense, to pay taxes to Rome. Christ asked for a coin, and when it was produced, asked whose image appeared on the coin. The he received the reply, "Ceasar's", he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:21, KJV) This story is repeated in three of the Gospels, also appearing in Mark 12, and Luke 20. In this passage, as well in numerous explanations in the remainder of the New testament, Christ made it clear that his concern was spiritual, not political. Christianity is not concerned with this world except via salvation, and a reward in the next world. To attempt to construct a religious political order in this life is antithetical to orthodox Christianity.
Second, the reason this is so, is because the Christian's concern with the poor or oppressed is personal, not political. It is a moral duty of the individual. Good works are, for orthodox Christianity, the outward sign through which the Christian shows that he has received salvation. By making the performance of these good works acts of political coercion, rather than personal dedication, liberation theology removes the element of free will. Rather than being an act of personal dedication to God, the performance of good works becomes a duty to the state. In effect, this requires the individual to render unto Caesar those things which should be God's.
Third, it is important to note, as I wrote long ago, that while the Christian is commanded to do good works, he is not commanded to compel others to do good works. By incorporating religious imperatives in state action, the liberation theologian compels others to perform religious duties. He invokes the armed might of the state to compel his fellows to do God's work. This debases God's work, because it removes the element of free will. Instead of allowing each person to work out his own salvation, 'with fear and trembling before God", it imposes the "salvation" favored by the political leaders of a given time. It is, in short, a violation of freedom of conscience, which is, as it happens, another political value that arises directly from Christianity. The apostle Peter received the vision of unclean animals, and was told by God to rise, kill, and eat them. The message was that the internal conscience, not external law, was the central locus of spirituality. The apostle Paul, when faced with the question of whether or not a Christian could eat meat that had been sacrificed to pagan gods, instructed that the individual should work this out with God in his own conscience. And, he further instructed that when you went to someone's house, not to ask any inconvenient questions about the source of the food. Liberation theology, on the other hand, subordinates the individual conscience with the conscience of the politico-religious governing class.
For my part, I have no desire to be subjected to the theocracy of the Left or the Right. Attempts to build heaven on earth, whether imposed by Torquemada or Karl Marx, have uniformly proven to be cruel in the extreme, and hostile to the most basic liberties.
So, I offer the above as food for thought, for those who are interested. What it says about Barack Obama, or the religious politics of the Right or Left, I leave for you to ponder, and come to your own conclusions.
The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.
As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don't forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don't have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here.
Oral arguments were made today in DC v. Heller, the District of Columbia's gun ban case, in which the appellate court held that the 2nd Amendment protects and individual right to bear arms. SCOTUSblog has full coverage of the oral arguments.
In addition, the Court's transcript of the arguments can be found here (PDF).
It looks, based on the oral arguments, that the individual rights view will be held by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, and perhaps Breyer, depending on the actual opinion, and the standard of scrutiny the Court devises for local gun regulation.
Well, I'm short a tooth, now. But, most of the pain is gone. On the other hand, I'm still on vicodin tonight, so we'll see how the pain is tomorrow, when I have to switch to Aleve and aspirin.
In any event, the comments section over at Libby's place is still going strong, so here's the latest abstract.
I'm not an economist, although I do lunch with many of them in various countries. Many of them seem less convinced of the inconsequential nature of Bush's actions relative to economic stability than you are.
I've been similarly critical of the administration's policies in many economic areas.
But we're talking about a specific thing here, and you guys are dragging in irrelvancies like tax rates, and the like, and failing to address the key point, which is that mortgage brokers—who were the key players in creating this fiasco—are essentially unregulated at the federal level.
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you.
Don't you think the debt we have incurred from Bush's war has had any effect on credit markets and hence on our current state of affairs?
Well, that's a very complicated question.
First, the US national debt is about $9 trillion, of which, about $4 trillion is treasury notes held by US government agencies. The public debt of the US, i.e., bonds held by non-governmental institutions and individuals, is about $5 trillion. With a GDP of $13 trillion, that means that the public debt is about 37% of GDP. This makes the US the 65th highest ranking nation in terms of public debt to GDP.
For instance other advanced nations have debt ratios like:
Norway 39.1% of GDP UK 43.3% of GDP Austria 61% of GDP Canada 64% of GDP Germany 65.3% of GDP France 66.6% of GDP Belgium 86.1% of GDP Italy 105.6% of GDP Japan 182.4% of GDP
So, I think you have to ask, if our debt level is crowding out private debt with public debt, is that also happening in these other countries.
With the exception of Japan, it doesn't appear to be.
Logically, there must be some level of public debt at which private debt s crowded out of the debt market by the easy availability of government-backed instruments, but no one reall
