Economics & conservatism

Two interesting data points this week seem to confirm one of my long-standing suspicions: economic knowledge and conservative political philosophy are strongly correlated. My belief, cultivated from years of observing liberals I know, is that those on the political left tend to favor some form of moral or ethical worldview, placing cold economic realities much further down the scale of importance than conservatives like myself.

The first point is a study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (not exactly a hotbed of conservative propaganda):

Most notably, the study found that the more economics classes a person took, the more likely he or she was to be a member of the Republican Party and to donate money to a political candidate or a cause.

“In sum,” the study said, “those taking more economics classes favored less regulation or government intervention affecting prices for specific goods and services, including wages and salaries.”

The second point of reference is a more controversial survey conducted by Professor of Econ at George Mason, Dr. Daniel Klein, and Zogby researchers. They asked eight questions, and counted as incorrect only those responses that explicitly opposed basic economic consensus on each subject. The design of the study could have been more neutral had they asked questions that challenged conservative sacred cows, but at least they admit that in the WSJ article summary. Here are the results:

Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

I consider myself to be a Libertarian with an asterix (I don't always agree with Libertarian foreign policy leanings - I tend to be more of a hawk).

Health Care Costs

I should have been blogging about Obamacare this past year, but family and work obligations overwhelmed me.

One of the big claims that the administration has made on this push is that the bill is deficit neutral, or even better: it will "bend the cost curve" down. Critics like Republican Paul Ryan (Wis) have done a good job dismantling that argument. The reality is that we cannot afford this new entitlement, especially at a time when we're faced with the insolvency of our two existing entitlements.

The Wall St Journal revisited the issue yesterday with The Cost Control Illusion, a rebuttal of administration propaganda being sown in a last-ditch effort to counter the charge of fiscal irresponsibility. It concludes with this zinger:

ObamaCare's real cost-control plan boils down to this: First subsidize coverage so much that costs explode, raise taxes as much as possible to pay for it, and when that isn't enough hand power to an unelected committee to limit treatment and control prices by government order. This is what Democrats are voting for.

I concur.

Tax Time

One little-covered story, hidden in the Washington Post just after tax day, was this gem:

As a candidate in 2008, Obama earned about $2.6 million from the sale of his books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams From My Father," according to returns the White House released yesterday.

And further down the page:

Most of Biden's income was from his Senate salary, although he reported about $9,500 from audio book royalties related to his 2007 autobiography, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics."

In short, Obama's book sales outearned Biden's by better than 270:1. Actually, the fact that anyone would pay to hear Biden talk on an audio CD is amazing. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Liberals and Conflict

Two editorials on Monday struck a note on liberal attitudes toward international conflict, more specifically the 30-year U.S. conflict with Iran. First, George Will writing about the Obama administration's U.N. ambassador Susan Rice, who was interviewed on a Sunday morning show. Rice apparently rambled on about the "international community" and Iran:

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity's natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements.

Christopher Hitchens was even more direct with his critique of Obama's recent tour of Europe and the President's general naivete on the subject of talks with Iran:

Some differences cannot be split. Many conflicts are real and do not arise from mere cultural misunderstandings. Obama must learn this or be taught it, whichever comes sooner.

The best summary of the frustration that conservatives like myself have with these liberal attitutes was John McCain in the Sept 26, 2008 presidential debate:

So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.

Blast from the Past

My wife and I were watching Blast from the Past this weekend. I got the tip off a National Review list of the 25 Best Conservative Movies of the last 25 years. I love anything with Christopher Walken.

Its a good little comedy, and it has some subtle parts where the characters discuss things like marriage and manners. It doesn't really hit you over the head, but conservative values are given a positive light for a change! Plenty of other films like Pleasantville depict values from an earlier era as backwards and oppressive.

The Fantastic Journey

Okay, I'm back!

I was searching IMDB for new stuff to add to my Netflix queue when I ran across this TV show called The Fantastic Journey from 1977. This is a show I recall from my childhood, but I had no way of finding it for years. I remember there was a guy from the future with a handheld device that would amplify his thoughts and produce telekinetic results (requiring significant mental concentration on his part). For some reason, that aspect of the show struck me as innovative and original in Sci-Fi at the time. Okay, I was just a kid.

Anyway, over the years I remembered that one feature, but I had no idea what the show's title was. I also had no knowledge of any of the cast, the year it was produced, the creators or writers, the characters names, etc. In short, I had nothing to google, so it remained a mystery to me until tonight. Unfortunately, I checked on Netflix and it is not available on DVD.

1979: Best TV Year Ever

I've always been a fan of the 1970's culture, the bizarre fashion, and the incredible rock that came out of that era (Zeppelin, Eagles, Van Halen, Floyd). If you aren't a child of the 70's, you probably wouldn't understand. I was 11 years old in 1979, otherwise known as the best year ever for TV if you were an American kid at that time.

For those who weren't there, let me review. In January of 1979 the Dukes of Hazzard premiered. Fast cars jumping impossible obstacles, Daisy Duke in cutoffs, and Rosco P. Coltrane (say it with the accent on the "P"). What more could a boy ask for? Dialog and plot were irrelevant, my younger brother and I just wanted to drive that orange Dodge Charger and holler "yee-haw" at the top of our lungs. For the girls there was the tall blonde and uncomplicated brother Bo Duke, and the dark-haired cerebral brother Luke Duke. They were like a boy band of two designed purely for marketing purposes, only without the music. The show ran for 7 seasons, spawned a brief spinoff series Enos, two TV movies, and a theatrical remake in 2005. Most people don't know that Dukes was actually based on a 1975 movie called Moonrunners, complete with Waylon Jennings.

Also debuting in 1979 was Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. This was a cheesy ripoff of the Star Wars phenomenon, but we didn't care initially. It had spaceships flying and fighting, Erin Gray in tight jumpsuits, and weird aliens. Okay, so Twiki was a very lame attempt to do what R2-D2 did for the George Lucas franchise. Unfortunately, the show quickly degenerated in the second season because the writing got weaker; as I recall my brother and I gave up when they tried to introduce a little blue creature who was obviously Yoda-lite.

There were two towering shows already on the schedule in 1979: The Incredible Hulk and Battlestar Galactica. The Hulk was actually a somewhat poignant adaptation of the comic book, it certainly took itself more seriously than any of the other shows I review here. I used to feel sorry for the Banner character when he had to leave town at the end of each episode, hitchhiking on some lonely road. He was like a lost dog that any kid would want to rescue, "Mom, can we keep the Hulk in our house?" They had a two episode plot where guest star Mariette Hartley was Banner's terminally ill love interest. He tries in vain to save her with his knowledge and special blood chemistry. Heavy stuff.

The short-lived Galactica was the pinnacle of kidTV. Battlestar Galactica arrived in the fall of 1978, and like Buck Rogers it was designed to capitalize on the earlier success of Star Wars. Unlike Buck Rogers, Galactica had Star Wars-quality special effects because the same guy (John Dykstra) did the model work. It also had a more substantial background plot, bigger budget and better feathered haircuts. I can remember that it was imperative for me to catch every episode. Unfortunately the show was such a good imitation, George Lucas sued the producer for infringement and the series collapsed after just one season under the weight of the budgets necessary to do the special effects. 24 years later it spawned a revival on the Sci-Fi cable network, first as a miniseries, followed by 4 seasons of excellent science fiction. The new show is to my adult self as the original was to my 11 year-old self.

Today network TV has degenerated to the point where I hardly watch any shows regularly. Ironically, the best show on this past summer was Swingtown, a show about the 70's. These days I usually rent cable shows on DVD.

Vermont Part II: To The Moon!

One of the announcements the week we visited Vermont was from Democrat Gaye Symington, candidate for Governor in the fall election. She made the bold declaration that her administration would push the use of wind power from 0.2% to 20% of the state's total energy in 10 years.

This sounds familiar. First, there was Al Gore speaking in Washington D.C. July 17th:

I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years

Gore was primarily talking about wind, solar and geothermal energy sources according to sources at his nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection. More recently, Barack Obama made the following challenge at the Democratic National Convention in Denver:

For the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Everyone thinks they're JFK launching us on another moon mission. Enough already! What do all these statements have in common? Answer: they are ill-conceived and unnecessary environmental posturing in the face of a real energy crisis. Nobody seems to have mentioned to Gore or Symington the simple fact that wind and solar energy both require some measure of backup, because they are not reliably continuous sources of energy. A single cloudy or windless day can mean that the utility company must reconfigure the electric grid to supply the missing power from another site.

The scale of the conversion necessary to fulfill each challenge is lost on these Democrats. Clearly none of them have scientific or technical backgrounds. We should strive to achieve change, but we should set reasonable goals for ourselves. A consultation with the experts on energy might yield a reality check, see Making Gore's Switch Isn't Quite So Simple in yesterday's Washington Post.

Tellingly, Gore and Symington both ignore nuclear power, which is perhaps the only currently available technology for generating power in sufficient quantity without carbon emissions. Obama mentions nuclear power in a strange way, after listing natural gas and clean coal he says he'll "find ways to safely harness nuclear power." Safely harness? Is he reassuring nutty environmentalists or does he really believe that nuclear power plants are somehow unsafe?

Manu!

In light of the news that Spurs guard Manu Ginobili will have ankle surgery, I dug up this golden oldie.

Vermont Part I

I took the family to Vermont for a week at the beginning of August. Vermont is always a source of political entertainment for me, with it's granola left-wing nutjobs. Despite being the land of my youth, I share no common ground ideologically with most of them.

The headline in the Burlington Free Press the weekend we arrived was "Lesbian Bigamy." A spat between a college professor and her former lover had turned sour. Vermont was one of the first states to offer civil unions, but now it's facing all the sticky questions that come with that legal designation. I'm actually in favor of legal equality for gays, I think it's only fair to offer civil unions if the state offers benefits to heterosexual couples. The U.S. offers some legal reciprocity to married heterosexuals, i.e. if you're married in Connecticut it must also be legally recognized in other states. This protection does not yet apply in cases of homosexual unions. In the case at hand the women were married in Canada (which has gay marriage), but after they split one moved to Vermont and entered into a civil union without first seeking a divorce.

The case highlights the willingness of a lesbian to take advantage of the benefits of marriage when it is convenient, but drop the legal designation in a flash when it no longer suits her. At least one lawyer interviewed in the article agreed that it probably was bigamy. Still, authorities were reluctant to prosecute it because the "gay" part of the equation was precedent setting.