It's in the smidgen of space between Al Gore and George Bush, children.
There seems to be an idea floating around in the liberal segment of the Blogosphere that Gore is "Center", Bush is "Right", and Nader is left. Honey, the "Center" is not defined by your personal political beliefs; it is defined by the center of American opinion. And like it or not, that's where both the extensively focus-grouped, consulted, and stage-managed major-party candidates were. Bush is Center-Right, Gore is Center-Left, Nader is Far-ish Left, and Buchanan is Far-Ish Right.
It will be news to our brothers on the Left that the conservatives see things the exact same way they do -- except Bush is in the center, Gore is on the left, Buchanan's on the right, and Nader is off in Central America building his guerilla army while he plots the downfall of Western civilization.
The tendency of people to point to conservatives who are really rather moderate as being exemplars of the right's dominance of something, and when it is pointed out to them that there are plenty of counterparts on the center-left, to declare "Why, Brookings is non-partisan and centrist!" is why conservatives won't talk to them. (Full disclosure: family members have worked for Brookings in the past. I have no idea why that would matter, but nonetheless.) And people who complain that we're only discussing social-security privatisation and school-vouchers because conservatives campaigned for them for so long -- implying that anything that wasn't popular around in 1972 is illegitimate -- can't really be unaware that exactly the same thing can be said about social security or welfare, and conservatives could argue as easily that 1922 is the right year to work from. Or 1860. What does the rightness or wrongness of an idea have to do with its popularity in the distant past?
In general, I think that both sides could benefit from a couple of ground rules:
1) No one gets to pick some time in the distant past when everyone was right, and declare that they draw their moral authority from the denizens of that halcyon era. The fifties and the sixties are over, folks. If your idea can't stand on its own now, its popular history won't help it.
2) Stop complaining that the other side is advocating for their ideas. Lying and deception are fair game for outrage; campaigning is not. If your ideas can't stand the heat, throw 'em out and get some better ones.
3) Stop calling the other side names. It's not just counterproductive; it's boring. Unless your rhetorical skills are something special, limit your attacks to their ideas.
4) Stop whining about what happened in the past. If politics were nice and perfectly fair every time, it wouldn't be politics, it would be nursery school. Clinton is out of office. I don't care what he did or did not do with any number of women, and I don't care what the Republicans did to him. It was five years ago. Get a new topic. Ditto the 2000 election. If Gore runs against Bush and loses then, you're going to look a little stupid.
5) Can the hypotheticals. I don't know whether Gore would have done all right in office after 9/11 or not. You don't either. You don't know what the Republicans would have said or not said about him, although I would point out to one commenter on this site that what restrained Daschle & Co. from criticising Bush for so long was neither good taste nor goodwill, and one can assume the same rough factors would have restrained the Republicans. Either way, you don't know. What's particularly odd is that the people presenting these hypotheticals always act as if they were irrefutable facts with which no one with smidge of reason could possibly disagree. "You can't tell me that if a plane had gone down in China on Clinton's watch, the press wouldn't have given him a full pass." Whatever, chum; the Psychic Friends Network just cut me off for non-payment.
6) If you have to fudge numbers and blur distinctions in order to make a case for your ideas, why do you believe them? If you don't understand the science or math behind an issue, why are you arguing with people who understand it better? Do you hope to convince them with the vast inertial weight of your ignorance? Or are you hoping to get them so frustrated by the difficulty of explaining climatology to someone who dropped out of freshman physics that they spontaneously combust? [unfortunately, this does not work -- ed.] Or do you just enjoy looking like a total idiot in public?
7) People should not be referred to as "Fascists", "Marxists", "Communists", "Nazis", etc. unless they are actually devotees of the schools of political thought, or members of the political parties, that those labels describe. Many people will be surprised to learn this, but those terms actually have specific meanings, which are not "The political orientation of anyone who strongly disagrees with me."
8) Assume, until proven otherwise, that your opponent is a person of goodwill. Accept that some things are value judgements that will not be argued away: between, for example, a higher absolute standard of living for the poor, or less inequality of income. Between economic growth and wilderness preservation. Between great taste and less filling. If you know that your opponent is factually or theoretically wrong, assume that this is ignorance or misinformation, not malice.
9) Do not walk in assuming that you occupy the moral high ground. No one listens to sermons except the converted.
10) If you're wrong, admit it at once. No one will fault you for being mistaken. Everyone will hate you for refusing to admit it. Andrew Sullivan et al. didn't go after Tapped because they got the numbers wrong, but because they refused to admit the possibility that the numbers were wrong, and wrote snotty posts about anyone who suggested they should check again.
11) Many people wander into the other half of the Blogosphere having carefully nurtured a plethora of witty responses to the straw man arguments that flourish in the echo chambers of both the liberal and conservative press. They are therefore expecting that as soon as they have shone the cold light of reason on the ridiculous notions of those rubes on the other side, all but the mean-spirited and vicious among them will immediately see the error of their ways. When they find out that those people have real live reasons for believing as they do, often bolstered by real live facts, they are hurt. This is not what they expected. They feel surprised, and somehow betrayed. At this juncture, they often choose to go on the offensive, name calling and writing sarcastic, bombastic screeds which often seem to center around the silliest and most biased material available to their side, yet are shocked to find out that libertarians are, for some reason, unconvinced by the latest publications from the CSPI. Often, defending their initial assertions against angles they hadn't, in their previous hothouse environment, really considered, leads them to take increasingly extreme positions in defense of their original unnuanced view, until having found themselves arguing that in order to, say, prevent abortions we should take down the name and phone number of anyone who ever paused in front of a Planned Parenthood Clinic and then hunt them down and shoot them, they flounce away after declaring that everyone on the site is a bunch of ignorant [expletive deleted] who kill babies for fun. If you find yourself caught in this cycle, I have news for you: they're not the ignorant [expletive deleted] here.
12) If, when someone seems to refute a point you have made, you say "That's not the point", you must then state what the point is. If they then refute that point, you are not allowed to say that that actually wasn't the point either, and the real point was some third thing that hasn't been yet refuted. Neither may you change the subject to tangential or related issues until you have conceded that you were incorrect about the first topic.
13) If you are going to attack someone for citing sources that are biased, do not try to prove this by using sources that are equally biased in the other direction; i.e., do not try to prove that Cato is wrong about something by flashing up a talking points memo from a Nader group. Your opposition could get seriously hurt laughing that hard. It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.
14) No one is much moved by exhortations to the effect that they're just selfish and mean. First of all, it's rarely true, except in the case of Objectivists, and they don't care.
15) I don't care how mad you are -- I mean it. No name calling. Unless they call names first. Even then, it's polite to fire a warning shot across the bow.
16) No, drug testing in schools is not the same thing as jack-booted thugs coming to our house in the middle of the night and making us "disappear". Neither are trigger guards on handguns. As much as you may disagree with these particular decisions, let's tone it down a little, 'kay?
17) And fer gosh sakes, will you get out a little more? The sureness of your own ineluctable moral superiority, of the venal stupidity of the other side, of the patent weakness of the opposition's arguments and moral fiber, is a little tiresome. Cruise around and see what the other side has to say. Then attack them. Nicely, of course. Really, it saves a lot of trouble putting words in the mouths of straw men when you can probably find some idiot somewhere who said pretty much the same thing, and think of how much less typing you'll do. Oh, and after you've slapped them around, it's polite to offer a handkerchief with which they can clean themselves up before they have to go back to work.
Now, I'm sure that many of you are even now mentally compasing notes which point out the ways in which I have violated these precepts. No doubt. I have also been known to snap at my family, put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today, and leave my bed unmade. Manners and morals should be mountains to which we aspire, not caves in which we hide.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Update Alex Whitlock comments, saying that more liberals mistakenly believe that their beliefs are centrists than conservatives. I actually agree, although he seems to imply that no conservatives think that George Bush is in the center and Al Gore on the left, which contradicts my experience; I've met quite a few conservatives who seemed to think that Al Gore was only slightly to the right of Chairman Mao.
But I think that he correctly traces that to the media. Leaving aside questions of overall bias left or right, I think most reasonable people would agree that the New York Times is very liberal, the Washington Post moderately so, the LA Times and the San Francisco papers pretty far to the left, as are the Boston Globe, the Philly Inquirer, and the Seattle paper, the name of which escapes me. The two major newsweeklies, I think we can also agree if we actually read a few issues, are moderately Center-Left in their coverage and editorial policy, and the only person who actually subscribes to US News is my grandmother, so I think we can safely ignore it.
What do conservatives have? The Wall Street Journal and the business magazines. (Except Businessweek, which is -- believe it or not -- center-left on many issues.)
This means two things. First, it is easier for liberals than conservatives to avoid good arguments that contradict their own ideas, though of course I know people on both ends of the spectrum who simply refuse to read things they know they disagree with. And second, it is easier for them to believe that because liberals have captured ten newspapers, this must represent the broad swath of opinion in the country. (I'll give WaPo a pass on this one; they've got great conservative editorialists. On the other hand, their market also includes a lot of conservatives, and Washingtonians in general are unlikely to believe that the opposition is a bunch of rubes anyway.) It's not surprising that they think that way; we didn't evolve in a logic class, but in a jungle. If you only ever hear good arguments in support of your side, our brain is hardwired to decide that that probably means that there are no good arguments for the other side. It takes a conscious effort to overcome it.
Sales are sliding off at the Jane Galt store (just click on the "Jane Galt Line" button on the left to view our fine assortment of items, personally designed by moi.) Frankly, I don't understand it -- I look just darling in my "Who is Jane Galt?" babydoll T.
However, being an MBA, I know what the answer is: go to your consumers. I want to find out what you guys want. And then I want to give it to you. Unless it's illegal, or involves Sea Bass. So I'm opening the first official contest of the Summer Games: think up logos, slogans, etc. that you'd like to see on genuine Jane Galt merchandise. The winners will get. . . well, the satisfaction of a job well done. So don't kill yourself. But if you've got any good ideas. . . any ideas at all. . . shoot me an email or stick 'em in the comments.
So Pataki has promised not to rebuild anything on the WTC site.
And Sheldon Silver is dragging his feet.
And I know the burning question you all have is: what does Jane think?
Well, I think there are basically three ways we can go.
1) Keep the footprint of the buildings as a memorial 2) Build 'em back, higher 3) Build regular buildings here.
I'm against #3. Perhaps I'm too close to it, but I don't think that 9/11 was a footnote to history; I think it was a national tragedy. And you wouldn't build a condo/golf course development on the Gettysburg battlefield no matter how pretty the view was, or how nicely it would spur development in the surrounding area.
I'm also against #2, for practical reasons. There's a reason that after the 70's, all the "World's highest buildings" are built by countries looking to bolster national pride, instead of developers trying to make a buck. Buildings that tall have numerous issues, the biggest of which is elevators; it's not really efficient to build a building much taller than 55 stories, because after that height, the elevator requirements either start to crowd out office space, or make it very slow to get to the top. While it does have a certain ". . . and the horse you rode in on" charm that appeals to me, ultimately, we'd be building an expensive white element just to flip our enemies the bird. That's not the American Way. The American Way is to do things right and laugh ourselves rich.
So I favor #1. Now, many of you will tell me that we can't afford it, but I'm not so sure. The WTC isn't good building space; rebuilding it would be very expensive. I think we could develop other areas around it instead to replace the space. And not only could, but should.
Because I think the only way we can really remember the WTC is so see how very vast were the buildings that fell. You can't imagine it unless you are here, looking at the hole. . . even people who saw it before it fell can't know, because staring at a concrete wall is nowhere near as powerful as staring at its absence. I want our grandchildren to be able to come here and see, more powerfully than words could ever convey, the enormity of the towers that fell. Nothing that large will probably ever be built in this country again. We shouldn't erase its memory.
Who thinks it's okay for the New York Times to print stories about the contents of "highly classified" military plans, and who thinks that it's bizarre that no one's even questioning whether this is appropriate?
Those stupid rich bastards. They're using their money to create charities that actually perform services, when they could use it to lobby the government.
Amygdala wants to know why more conservatives aren't condemning Ann Coulter or Cal Thomas. I thought that went without saying, but apparently not. Okay, here it is: don't like invective unless it is amusing. Neither is my cup of tea, and we are not ideological bedfellows. I don't approve of what Cal Thomas said, nor Ann Coulter's invade/convert speech.
A number of readers have emailed to ask what I think of this article about Joseph Stiglitz. Well, he's got a Nobel prize, and I don't (and unless they start giving them out for outstanding contributions to humanity in the field of snotty remarks, never will). But here's the view from the other side, from someone who's smarter, and to my chagrin, better at snotty remarks, than me.
My father writes in from Ireland to criticize me for my insufficient knowlege of Canadian history. Dad went to the University of Toronto, and also, he knows everything.
I did like your website yesterday and today. I did, however, think that the analyses of the Canadian situation is weak! You have two issues at work Remember that the Maritimes are what passed for English Canada in the 1770s... Ontario was still a wilderness, with relatively little settlement until the 1810s..much like upstate New York. And the Maritimes were partially French...remember that there were substantial French settlements in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. So most of the English were in Halifax and the like..working for the government ( Halifax was the principal military base before 1776, developed to control the struggle for New France). They weren't about to abandon the Crown. There was little profitable agriculture and most of the forestry exploitation went to the UK, much for the Royal Navy. I suspect that the level of control was quite intense . The French wanted no part of another English governance,and the Americans weren't particularly interested. But an interesting question.
And why should North Dakota have 2 Senators and Queens ( 3 times the population) have none ? At least Brooklyn has the Chuckster!
So how come the same people who are ranting that it's not fair that low-population midwestern states get the same Senate sway as high-population Eastern states nevertheless think that the UN is the answer to every foreign policy question?
No word yet on whether he's a terrorist or a lone nut.
Now I'm waiting for the first nutjob to crawl out of the woodwork claiming that he's actually an agent of the US government who committed this crime in order to gin up popular support for our plans for a massive three pronged attack on Iraq.
I'm sure I won't have long to wait.
Nor for the calls for more gun control. His weapon was apparently registered. But before you start calling for more controls, ask yourself this: if he hadn't had a gun, would he have stayed home?
Steven Den Beste has been getting some critics on his post about AIDS in Africa. I've also had one guy on this site who pointed out that all of these questions of triage are moot if we get a vaccine. Yes, that's true -- if we do. I'm not too sanguine about the possibilities of this, given that we've been trying for fifteen years and have bupkiss to show for it, but I'm not a doctor, so what the hell do I know? But anyway, we don't have one yet. Until we do, we have to talk about triage.
Others are taking Den Beste to task for saying that aid dollars are limited. Okay, theoretically, we could send $100 billion to Africa to fight disease. However, this misses the point. It's common to talk about sending money to various places, but we don't actually send dollars, although they are the medium in which the aid is expressed -- what would a villager in the Congolese jungle do with a bunch of green paper? The toilet paper situation isn't that critical. What we actually send them is stuff. Drugs. Equipment. And people.
Even if we were willing to send $100 billion to Africa, you may have noticed that we do not have a large surplus quantity of healthcare workers choking our soup kitchens and unemployment lines. Perhaps we could make more doctors and nurses. . . but do we have a big surplus of people in our society who want to leave America to dispense drugs in primitive conditions? Besides which, it takes ten years to make a doctor. In that ten years, the AIDS disaster spreads anyway.
But without those workers, the other aid is useless. Pharma companies, believe it or not, aren't unwilling to give their drugs to Africa cheap (they're afraid of demagoguing Senators here deciding that because AZT costs 10 cents in Africa, it should cost the same here -- but that's another story.) The problem is that shipping drugs without shipping the requisite medical knowlege and infrastructure to make sure that they're taken properly is worse than doing nothing -- it won't help the sick people much, and it will create drug-resistant strains that will wreak havoc in areas where people can be helped by drugs.
And of course, AIDS drugs regimes are terribly complicated and require careful monitoring for side effects. How do you take them on a precise schedule when you don't have electricity for a clock, and quite possibly don't know how to tell time? (That's not a slur, folks; why would you know how to tell time, after all? Sun rises, you work; sun sets, you sleep. Agrarian life doesn't require precise scheduling; our ancestors didn't tell time either until the 17th century or later.)
As with many things, throwing money at the problem won't fix it. And the sad fact may be that in this case, nothing can.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
This Monument Marks the First Burying Ground in Plymouth of the Passengers of the Mayflower. Here, under the cover of darkness, the fast dwindling company laid their dead, leveling the earth above them lest the Indians should know how many were the graves. History records no nobler venture for faith and freedom than this Pilgrim band. In weariness and painfulness, in watchings, often in hunger and cold, they laid the foundations of a state wherein every man, through countless ages, should have liberty to worship God in his own way. May their example inspire thee to do thy part in perpetuating and spreading the lofty ideals of our republic throughout the world!
They laid the foundation of a state wherein every man through countless ages should have liberty.
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight' O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming. And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen, thro' the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream; 'Tis the star-spangled banner: oh, long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion A home and a country should leave us no more? Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand, Between their loved homes and the war's desolation; Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land Praise the Power that has made and preserved us as a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"; And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate! We know what Master laid thy keel, What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel, Who made each mast, and sail, and rope, What anvils rang, what hammers beat, In what a forge and what a heat Were shaped the anchors of thy hope! Fear not each sudden sound and shock, 'Tis of the wave and not the rock; 'Tis but the flapping of the sail, And not a rent made by the gale! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore, Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee. Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee, -are all with thee!
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the revolutionary war.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers or both, looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
OATH OF NATURALIZED CITIZEN
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
That I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
And that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; So help me God.
In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.
I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the duties incumbent upon me in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this with absolute disregard of personal consequences. What are the personal consequences? What is the individual man, with all the good or evil that may betide him, in comparison with the good or evil which may befall a great country, and in the midst of great transactions which concern that country's fate? Let the consequences be what they will, I am careless. No man can suffer too much, and no man can fall too soon, if he suffer, or if he fall, in the defense of the liberties and constitution of his country.
So away, down the moonlit road, goes Paul Revere and the Larkin horse, galloping into history, art, editorials, folklore, poetry; the beat of those hooves never to be forgotten. The man, his bold dark face bent, his hands light on the reins, his body giving to the flowing rhythm beneath him, becoming, as it were, something greater than himself-- not merely one man riding one horse on a certain lonely night of long ago, but a symbol to which his countrymen can yet turn. Paul Revere had started on a ride which, in a way, has never ended.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE BOSTON TEA PARTY George R. T. Hewes
I dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.
When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew. We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging. We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water. In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.
We then quietly retired to our several places of residence, without having any conversation with each other, or taking any measures to discover who were our associates; nor do I recollect of our having had the knowledge of the name of a single individual concerned in that affair, except that of Leonard Pitt, the commander of my division, whom I have mentioned. There appeared to be an understanding that each individual should volunteer his services, keep his own secret, and risk the consequence for himself. No disorder took place during that transaction, and it was observed at that time that the stillest night ensued that Boston had enjoyed for many months.
From Poem and Prayer for an Invading Army Edna St. Vincent Millay
“Let them come home! Oh let the battle, Lord, be brief, and let our boys come home!” So cries the heart, sick for relief from its anxiety, and seeking to forestall a greater grief.
So cries the heart aloud. But the thoughtful mind has something of its own to say: “On that day – when they come home – from very far away – and further than you think – (for each of them has stood upon the very brink or sat and waited in the anteroom of Death, expecting every moment to be called by name)
Now look to this matter well: that they upon returning shall not find seated at their own tables, - at the head, perhaps, of the long festive board prinked out in prodigal array, the very monster which they sallied forth to conquer and to quell; and left behind for dead.”
Let us forget such words, and all they mean, as Hatred, Bitterness and Rancor, Greed, Intolerance, Bigotry; let us renew our faith and pledge to Man, his right to be Himself, and free.
Say that the Victory is ours – then say – and each man search his heart in true humility – “Lord! Father! Who are we, that we should wield so great a weapon for the rights and rehabilitation of Thy creature Man? Lo, from all corners of the Earth we ask all great and noble to come forth – converge upon this errand and this task with generous and gigantic plan:
Hold high this Torch, who will. Lift up this Sword, who can!”
This country was not built by men who relied on somebody else to take care of them. It was built by men who relied on themselves, who dared to shape their own lives, who had enough courage to blaze new trails with enough confidence in themselves to take the necessary risks. This self-reliance is our American legacy. It is the secret of that something which stamped Americans as Americans. Some call it individual initiative, others backbone. But whatever it is called, it is a precious ingredient in our national character, one which we must not lose. The time has come for us to re-establish the rights for which we stand—to re-assert our inalienable rights to human dignity, self-respect, self-reliance—to be again the kind of people who once made America great. Such a crusade for renewed independence will require a succession of inspired leaders—leaders in spirit and in knowledge of the problem, not just men with political power, but men who are militantly for the distinctive way of life that was America. We are likely to find such leaders only among those that promote self-reliance and who practice it with strict devotion and understanding.
And our flag--another pride of ours, our chiefest! When we have seen it in far lands--glimpsing it unexpectedly in that strange sky, waving its welcome and benediction to us--we have caught our breaths, and uncovered our heads, and couldn't speak, for a moment, for the thought of what it was to us and the great ideals it stood for.
I hear America singing, the varied carols I hear, Those of mechanics, each one singing his as it should be blithe and strong, The carpenter singing his as he measures his plank or beam, The mason singing his as he makes ready for work, or leaves off work, The boatman singing what belongs to him in his boat, the deckhand singing on the steamboat deck, The shoemaker singing as he sits on his bench, the hatter singing as he stands, The wood-cutter's song, the ploughboy's on his way in the morning, or at noon intermission or at sundown, The delicious singing of the mother, or of the young wife at work, or of the girl sewing or washing, Each singing what belongs to him or her and to none else, The day what belongs to the day--at night the party of young fellows, robust, friendly, Singing with open mouths their strong melodious songs.
Where the northern ocean darkens, Where the rolling rivers run, Past the cold and empty headlands, Toward the slow and westering sun, There our fathers, long before us, Armed with freedom, faced the deep; What they won with love and labor, Let their children watch and keep. By our dark and dreaming forests, By our free and shining skies, By our green and ripening prairies, Where the western mountains rise; God who gave our fathers freedom, God who made our fathers brave, What they built with love and anguish, Let their children watch and save.
What flower is this that greets the morn, Its hues from Heaven so freshly born? With burning star and flaming band It kindles all the sunset land: Oh tell us what the name may be -- Is this the Flower of Liberty? It is the banner of the free, The starry Flower of Liberty! In savage Nature's far abode Its tender seed our fathers sowed; The storm-winds rocked its swelling bud, Its opening leaves were streaked with blood, Till lo! earth's tyrants shook to see The full-blown Flower of Liberty! Then hail the banner of the free, The starry Flower of Liberty! Behold its streaming rays unite, One mingling flood of braided light The red that fires the Southern rose, With spotless white from Northern snows, And, spangled o'er its azure, see The sister Stars of Liberty! Then hail the banner of the free, The starry Flower of Liberty! The blades of heroes fence it round, Where'er it springs is holy ground; From tower and dome its glories spread; It waves where lonely sentries tread; It makes the land as ocean free, And plants an empire on the sea! Then hail the banner of the free, The starry Flower of Liberty! Thy sacred leaves, fair Freedom's flower, Shall ever float on dome and tower, To all their heavenly colors true, In blackening frost or crimson dew, And God love us as we love thee, Thrice holy Flower of Liberty! Then hail the banner of the free, The starry Flower of Liberty!
Every now and then, when the world grows dull, And the edge of sunshine or the song of a bird Frays away to the shadow of a dream, I take a map, a map, perhaps, of my state, One of my states -- New York of the glorious hills, Or Pennsylvania of the shaggy woods, Or great high-shouldered, blue-eyed Minnesota, Or swart New Jersey, the commuters' pocket, Or cramped and memory-riddled Massachusetts, Or the enigmatic steppes of the Dakotas, Or California of the laughing sunshine They are all my states, and I have loved them all, Worked, sweated, hated, and taken joy in them. I know their streets, their roads, and the ways between The great green stretches south of the Great Lakes, The hills, and dunes, and plains, and sunny crossroads, Remember the turns, the heartfelt run of the land, The weeds beside the road, the meadow larks, The waiting houses, the whispering cry of rain, Lakes in the sunlight, and darkness over the land. And I see roads I have not yet come to travel But I know they, too, are good, and I shall be there Some day, all in good time, for this is my home, This is America, my own country.
The blood of free men stains my ballot sheet. Whatever others may do, I shall not carelessly make my mark. I vote not because I can, but because I must. Those who died for this, my voice in my Government, had a right to expect that I would use it wisely, honestly, and courageously. They did not die that blind partisans, or the reckless, might make a game of free elections.
Only my secret heart knows whether I justify the definition of "Voter" as they wrote it in the reddening sand. If I love my country as they did, I question my qualifications again and again.
I carefully study the issues and candidates to determine not what is best for me, but for my country.
I will not be confused or deceived by propaganda, slogans, or histrionics. I shield my eyes to the glitter of personalities, purge my mind of passion and prejudice, and search diligently for the hidden truth. I must be free of all influence save conscience and justice.
I vote as if my ballot alone decided the contest. I may lose my preference, but I will not throw away my sacred vote. For within the booth I hold in my humble hand the living proxy of all my country's honored dead.
She is old, and bent, and wrinkled, In her rocker in the sun, And the thick, gray, woollen stocking That she knits is never done. She will ask the news of battle If you pass her when you will, For to her the troops are marching, Marching still. Seven tall sons about her growing Cheered the widowed mother's soul; One by one they kissed and left her When the drums began to roll. They are buried in the trenches, They are bleaching on the hill; But to her the boys are marching, Marching still. She was knitting in the corner When the fatal news was read, How the last and youngest perished,-- And the letter, ending, said: "I am writing on my knapsack By the road with borrowed quill, For the Union army's marching, Marching still." Reason sank and died within her Like a flame for want of air; So she knits the woollen stockings For the soldier lads to wear, Waiting till the war is ended For her sons to cross the sill; For she thinks they all are marching, Marching still.
Soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied expeditionary force: You are about to embark upon a great crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you.
The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving peoples everywhere march with you. You will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41.
The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeat in open battle man to man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground.
Our home fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.
The tide has turned.
The free men of the world are marching together to victory.
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle.
We will accept nothing less than full victory. Good luck, and let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
O my America for whom? For whom the promises? For whom the river? “It flows west! Look at the ripple of it!” The grass “So that it was wonderful to see And endless without end with wind wonderful!” The Great Lakes: landless as oceans: their beaches Coarse sand: clean gravel: pebbles: Their bluffs smelling of sunflowers: smelling of surf: Of fresh water: of wild sunflowers… wilderness. For whom the evening mountains on the sky: The night wind from the west: the moon descending? Tom Paine knew. Tom Paine knew the People. The promises were spoken to the People. History was voyages toward the People. Americas were landfalls of the People. Stars and expectations were the signals of the People Whatever was truly built the People had built it. Whatever was taken down they had taken down. Whatever was worn they had worn -- ax-handles: fiddle-bows: Sills of doorways: names for children: for mountains… The People had the promises: they’d keep them.
A relentless man loved France Long before she came to shame And the eating of bitter dust, Loving her as mother and torch, As bone of his kith and kin And he spoke passion, warning: "Rest is not a word for free peoples-- rest is a monarchical word." A relentless Russian loved Russia Long before she came to bare agony And valor amid rivers of blood, Loving her as mother and torch, As bone of his kith and kin: He remembered the old Swedish saying: "The fireborn are at home in fire." A Kentucky-born Illinoisan found himself By journey through shadow and prayer The Chief Magistrate of the American people Pleading in words close to low whispers: "Fellow citizens... we cannot escape history. The fiery trial through which we pass Will light us down in honor or dishonor To the latest generation... We shall nobly save or mealy lose The last best hope of earth.” Four little words came worth studying over: “We must disenthrall ourselves.” And what is a thrall? And who are thralls? Men tied down or men doped, or men drowsy? He hoped to see them shake themselves loose and so be disenthralled. There are freedom shouters. There are freedom whisperers. Both may serve. Have I, have you, been too silent? Is there an easy crime of silence? Is there an easy road to freedom?
During the day, the streets of Philadelphia were crowded with people anxious to learn the decision.
In the steeple of the old State House was a bell on which, by a happy coincidence, was inscribed, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
In the morning, when Congress assembled, the bell-ringer went to his post, having placed his boy below to announce when the Declaration was adopted, that his bell might be the first to peal forth the glad tidings.
Long he waited, while the deliberations went on. Impatiently the old man shook his head and repeated, "They will never do it! They will never do it!"
Suddenly he heard his boy clapping his hands and shouting, "Ring! Ring!"
Grasping the iron tongue, he swung it to and fro, proclaiming the glad news of liberty to all the land.
The crowded streets caught up the sound. Every steeple re-echoed it.
All that night, by shouts, and illuminations, and booming of cannon, the people declared their joy.
There is a tide in the affairs of men, a nick of time. We perceive it now before us. To hesitate is to consent to our own slavery.
That noble instrument upon your table,that insures immortality to its author, should be subscribed this very morning by every pen in this house. He that will not respond to its accents, and strain every nerve to carry into effect its provisions, is unworthy of the name of free man.
For my own part, of property, I have some; of reputation, more. That reputation is staked, that property is pledged on the issue of this contest; and although these grey hairs must soon descend into the sepulcher, I would infinitely rather that they descend thither by the hand of the executioner than desert at this crisis the sacred cause of my country.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord; He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword: His truth is marching on.
I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps; They have builded him an altar in the evening dews and damps; I can read his righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps; His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel: "As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal; Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel, Since God is marching on.
"He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment-seat; Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer him! be jubilant, my feet! Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me: As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on.
What makes a nation's pillars high And it's foundations strong? What makes it mighty to defy The foes that round it throng? It is not gold. Its kingdoms grand Go down in battle shock; Its shafts are laid on sinking sand, Not on abiding rock. Is it the sword? Ask the red dust Of empires passed away; The blood has turned their stones to rust, Their glory to decay. And is it pride? Ah, that bright crown Has seemed to nations sweet; But God has struck its luster down In ashes at his feet. Not gold but only men can make A people great and strong; Men who for truth and honor's sake Stand fast and suffer long. Brave men who work while others sleep, Who dare while others fly... They build a nation's pillars deep And lift them to the sky.
How shall we honor them, our Deathless Dead? With strew of laurel and the stately tread? With blaze of banners brightening overhead? Nay, not alone these cheaper praises bring: They will not have this easy honoring. How shall we honor them, our Deathless Dead? How keep their mighty memories alive? In him who feels their passion, they survive! Flatter their souls with deeds, and all is said!
Joining Sullivan in the bigotry department today is uncredentialed economist Jane Galt, who relays a joke allegedly from a Polish co-worker. More noteworthy than the unfunnyness of the joke is that it implies that for anyone dissatisfied with the sort of capitalism that has emerged in the former Warsaw Pact countries, their misfortune is their own damn fault. And you can pronounce that "Savitsky," thank you very much.
Well, uncredentialed I'm not, or God knows I wasted a lot of money on grad school. Of course, I'm also not an economist, and do not claim to be one; just a lone MBA with a dial-up and a dream. But it's a fine distinction, and I could understand how he missed it. However, there are some broad points I would like to address.
First of all, I want to say that I am not bigoted -- some of my best friends are Polacks.
Second of all, it wasn't a joke -- it was a chance remark during a conversation about the political economy of Poland. It made me laugh out loud when she said it, and I immediately said "I'm putting that up on my site!", to which she replied "Please, go ahead."
Third of all, it wasn't meant to imply anything about the people who are dissatisfied -- it just struck me funny. The statist left, as prone to caricature its opponents as any other group, seems not to know that libertarians and free marketers are very much aware of the profound dislocation that accompanies market change, and its human cost -- we simply balance this, as any realistic system must, against the human cost of not having free markets. The unskilled and uneducated are unemployed and often drunk in an economy still dominated in many areas by moribund state industries, as their society tries to transition from decades of oppression to a free state? I am not surprised. But of course I am sympathetic. I'm very dissatisfied with the turn the capitalist system has taken in post-Warsaw Pact countries: the decline of property rights, the over-regulated and under-productive industries staggering along on the goodwill of incompetent regulators, the absence of a free market for labor. . . you get the idea. If I had to live under such a system, with no hope of change, I'd need something heavier than a beer to get me through it.
Fourth of all, Max, who is either of Polish citizenship or extraction, is apparently challenging the existence of my "alleged" Polish co-worker. She isn't alleged; she's very much alive, and sitting across from me. And she's a little miffed at Max's characterization of her remark as "bigoted". So much so that she took the time to write an open letter to Mr. Max Sawicky, in their ancestral tongue. (She apologizes for not having a Polish character set here at work, which rather limited its readability)
Drogi Przyjacielu!
Jako prawdziwa rodzona Polka pochodzenia z Warszawy, musze Ciebie wyprowadzic z bledu. Przezylam przykre lata upadku Komunizmu ì odczulam bòl na wlasnym grzbìecìe. Wyjechalam z naszego wspanialego kraju 25 lat temu. Od tamtego czasu bylam w ojczynzìe kilkanascie razy i niestety nie zauwazylam wiekszych zmian jezeli chodzi o stan trzezwosci umyslu wiekszosci naszych rodakòw, ktòrzy w dalszym ciagu maja mentalnosc biednego krewnego ze wsì (w tym miejscu chce Ciebie powiadomic, ze moja rodzina pochodzi ze wsi i ich bardzo lubie). Ciagle mozna u nas w kraju zauwazyc mnozace sie ilosci mlodych niewyksztalconych, bez robotnych mezczyzn pod budka, z piwem, ktorych stac na glupie rozmowy na “cztery nogi” i niesamowita znajomosc “Laciny”. Brak wyksztalcenia rowna sìe u nas z glupota i biedota. Tak bylo, jest i bedzie.
Moim marzeniem jest, aby nasz kraj osiagnal taki poziom ekonomiczny, ktòry istnieje tu w stanach zjednoczonych. Tak Nam Dopomòz Bòg.
Zawsze Twoja Rodaczka.
Ewa
And fifth, Max, if you're reading this: your link is wrong. Try right-clicking on this and selecting "copy shortcut" or "copy link location", depending on whether you're a Microsoftie or not. It would make it easier for them to find my racist screeds. It annoys me no end when I post hate speech and no one can find it. What if "Mein Kampf" had been lost at the publisher's? Makes you think, doesn't it? Although about what, I have no idea.
I think it's fair to say that at this point, many of the calls for "More Regulation!" of companies to prevent the kind of accounting fraud we've just witnessed are fairly reflexive. Oh, I think those making them are very earnest and well-meaning, but many of the people calling for us to vest the SEC with the kind of intrusive powers that would have them screaming to high heaven if the target were, say, John Walker Lindh, would be calling for "more regulation" if the problem were the decline of fruit roll-ups sales in the Midwest. There is a group of people in this country who think that the finest response that can be mustered to any crisis is a new law.
Which is not to say that conservatives, at least those of us of a libertarian bent, trust corporations any farther than we can throw them. We only trust them relative to the alternative, which is having the government provide the things we currently get from corporations. Many of us notice that pretty much everything we get from the government, well, sucks. While we have been called starry-eyed idealists or free-market utopians, at least we are not so blind to reality as to expect quality health care from the folks who gave us the DMV.
We are also aware that regulations have consequences other than the "Fix it!" demands being made urgently by the public interest groups. Believe it or not, those same public interest groups were, I'm told, in favor of that brilliant market innovation, mandating the purchase of California's electricity on the spot market. They believed that this would ensure that California's consumers would always benefit from the lowest possible electricity prices -- no windfall profits for those greedy corporations! Though they may have noticed that all the private companies made extensive use of forward contracts, they thought that they were smarter than the market. So smart, in fact, that they thought that they could make a law that consumers would always get low prices, no matter what.
Ooops.
Advocates of regulation seem generally to believe that there is, somewhere out there in the Platonic ether, an ideal regulation that will make everything work all the time and no one will be able to get around it, and if they do, we can stop that quick. Libertarians understand that there is no such animal. People are surprised that Corzine is jumping on the corporate regulation bandwagon, what with him being a big Wall Street type. Honey, how do you think Wall Street makes all its money? By dreaming up new financial "structures" which game the abstruse systems of tax, financial, and other regulation in this country. Want to increase regulations? Corzine is all ears. The regulations you want to write are going to put money in his pocket, as the legions of young MBA's at Goldman Sachs get busy finding ways around them. And while it's cute that you think you can write bulletproof regulations, go check out Jewish Law -- they've had 5,000 years and they're still arguing. And the people arguing are nowhere near as well paid as your average investment banker.
At this point in the discussion the regulophiles, the ones who aren't throwing their drinks at the libertarians, generally start saying "Well, the important thing isn't the specific rules; it's to create a smart regulatory body and give it enough power to really curb this sort of thing."
Oh, ho, ho, my friends. Would that it were so easy. First of all, you can't afford a smart regulatory body. Goldman Sachs pays people straight out of business school well over 100K. That's before they know anything. The salaries march rapidly upwards from there. And since there will always be more money in avoiding regulations than in making them, you'll always have a talent asymmetry heavily skewed towards the regulatees. Especially since to adequately audit the companies the way that these well-meaning and totally clueless souls are imagining when they call for stepped up enforcement would require a staff at least several times larger than the current number of employees at all the public accounting firms combined. Think I'm exaggerating? Don't take my word for it. Find a Democratic-leaning auditor for a public firm and ask him what it would take to really uncover fraud at public firms, and then ask them to compare that, in man-hours, to what they actually do on a typical audit. The gap is apparently enormous.
And then, once you've created this omniscient, omnipotent regulatory body, what happens? You lose control of it to the companies it regulates. It's called "regulatory capture", and it's pretty much universal. Again, don't take the word of Jeremiad Jane, shill for the Military-Industrial Complex. Ask anyone you know who's worked for, say, an advocacy group -- they'll be happy to tell you exactly how the regulatory agencies are in the grip of those fat-cat corporations. Bruce Baugh has an absolutely fantastic post on this subject which you should go read -- just as soon as you're finished listening to me rant.
Which is actually now. Lesson for the hour: things that sound simple, aren't. And you know this, don't you? When you try to explain the things you're an expert on, you get bogged down trying to demonstrate how complicated they are while your ignorant listeners jump to seemingly obvious yet utterly wrong conclusions about what you've just said. You know that the things you're an expert in are complex -- and yet you think you've got a ten-word solution to the problem of corporate governance in this country?
The less you know about the industry or market or scientific problem in question, and the easier and better a proposed solution sounds, the more likely it is to produce some catastrophic unintended cock-up which will have you screaming, in no time flat, that tireless refrain: "There oughta be a law."
Please excuse us if we can't resist a couple choruses of "I told you so."
Well, it's those mid-summer doldrums, so to prop up everyone's wilted spirits, there will be contests, trivia, and random questions galore.
First random question, to which I don't know the answer: why didn't Canada join the United States in her rebellion? Answer in the comments, email, or posts on your own blog -- let the games begin!
My post on stock options stirred up quite a hornet's nest.
First Robert Musil posted this excellent piece, pointing out the flaws in my suggestions for corporate governance, such as that a lengthy blackout periods (years, not months) before executives could sell their stock grants would once again dis-align the interests of management and shareholders, because a share that you are restricted from selling is not the same security as a liquid share. He's right, but as Mindles Dreck rejoinders, we aren't looking for the perfect compensation system, because honey, there ain't no such animal. We're looking for a better compensation system. And my personal feeling is that if management is too liquid, they are likely to divest in favor of a more diversified portfolio. This is the utterly rational course, and what I've been recommending for all of you out there with your 95% equity portfolios. However, the ostensible purpose of the stock grants is to give management a stake in the company, not turn them into billionaires -- unless they also turn some of their shareholders into billionaires at the same time.
(Many of you will now stop to tell me that if we don't turn them into billionaires, they'll go to some other company that will. You're missing the point. I'm not talking about the level of compensation; I'm talking about the type. From the point of view of shareholders, a stock grant that is rapidly sold is worse than just handing off a wad o' cash to their modern day Robin Hood, because the short term holding of company stock provides an apparently irresistable temptation to pump 'n dump. If you want to give them more cash, fine. But short-term stock holdings seem to me to be the worst of all possible schemes, short of handing the CEO some major chunks of physical plant to cart off and sell.)
Which brought me to email Mindles, who is in the money management biz, a related question: where the hell were the institutional investors?
Let me explain, for those of you who to whom this question seems somewhat random, why it is important.
The largest holdings by far in almost any company are institutional investors, with the exception of founder-operated firms, such as Oracle, and family operated firms, such as Ford, where voting control rests with the proprietors. Now, efficient market theory rests on the presumption that owners care what the managers of their firms do, and will take action against incompetent managers. However, in the modern corporation, ownership is very widespread, and most people with appropriately diversified portfolios have neither the time nor the inclination, nor the expertise, to watchdog the managers of all the companies they own.
They therefore expect to free-ride off the large investors, who are presumably doing their job, part of which is to make sure that the board protects the interests of the shareholders. Yet this wasn't happening. The boards at all of these companies were essentially extensions of the management, rubberstamping whatever the CEO and his merry band of marauders thought up. A quick look at Enron, for example, yields the revelation that the audit committee was mostly staffed by the members of the board least likely to know anything about accounting. Yet the institutional investors, who could have caught this, and would have caught it if they'd acted like owners instead of speculators, did nothing.
Mindles has some answers, but not as many as I'd like. And that's not criticism of Mindles -- if you aren't reading More Than Zero Sum every day, you should have your head examined. (Of course, some people go there for the cat pictures, but I read it for the articles. But I digress.) The point is, there's a serious failure in the system right now. The market for corporate governance seems to have gone horribly awry. And we don't know how to fix it.
This article on debunking deepthroat by Ken Hughes is seriously hilarious. You must read it now. Of course, this comes from someone who was .3 years old at the time of Nixon's resignation.
I saw a WorldCom employee on TV last night trying to explain why 80% of his retirement money was in WorldCom stock at the time of the collapse. "Well, unfortunately for me, I was a loyal employee who believed in the company. . . "
No, sir, with respect, you were an idiot.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for people who do idiotic things. I do quite a lot of them, like for example typing up all my opinions and handing them off to the mercies of total strangers who yell at me. I won't even tell you what my 401(k) looks like after I forgot to rebalance in 2000. Now I'm hanging on to my tech funds like the idiot I am, hoping they'll come back in 20 years or so.
Nonetheless.
When this gent watched the Enron folks on TV who were contemplating trading the split level for a refrigerator box and a can of Whiskas, who found themselves, in late middle age, unemployed, in a town where their now-bankrupt company was the major employer, with few prospects for either finding another job, or funding their retirement. . . did this guy notice, "Hey, I live in Mississippi. WorldCom is the major employer around here. I'm middle aged, and I have 80% of my 401(k) in one stock. Maybe I should take steps to avoid the same fate." Nope. He left his holdings where they were, popped open a Colt 45, and sat down to watch Mork and Mindy reruns.
My sympathy is not that extensive.
I mean, I'm sorry for everyone when they pay the price of being idiots. What with the Kennedy's running around hither and thither, it does seem a tad unfair that some of us should have consequences attached to our actions.
I'm sorry for this guy. And I want the scum-sucking swine who originated this fraud put in a maximum security prison, like the real, live criminals they are, for a long, long time. Along with the lawyers and auditors who signed off on their fraud. Stick them in a deep, dark hole and, if you're one of those bleeding heart types, pipe in sunlight on alternate Thursdays.
But this guy has to take some responsibility too. He's obviously had quite a bit of this stock for a long time; he didn't buy the majority of it based on fraudulent earnings. He chose, in other words, to stake his entire future on one company in the hopes that he would hit the lottery instead of earning boring, diversified returns. And when he was presented with a graphic illustration of what could happen to people who chose such a disastrous path, he ignored it. What if the business had just crashed because of the telecomm glut (this being what actually happened; the fraud only delayed the reckoning)? He'd still be whining.
We have to grow up as a nation. Listen up, folks: the majority of you are NOT. . . GOING . . . TO. . . BE . . . RICH. Got that? Nor will you be able to retire at fifty. Not. Going. To. Happen. And you know what? Neither did 99.999% of people in human history. At least you don't spend your whole day staring at the back end of a mule. It gets dusty back there, you know.
The 90's were about fantasy land. Surprise! The tooth fairy still isn't real; it's Bernie Ebbers, pretending that money magically grows under pillows. The real scandal is that we're surprised that this is so, that there is no such thing as easy money. As any con man will tell you, you can never con an honest man; it's the guy who thinks he's going to get something for nothing who's an easy mark. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't put the con man in jail.
But the only way we're going to stop being taken for marks is to stop acting like one.
I'm getting tired of the whining from the left, as if their last two presidents were carving bold, visionary foreign policy coups out of the barren steppes of Republican thought, instead of shamelessly caving to every two-bit foreign power as long as they'd just go away and leave us alone so we could tinker with the welfare state.
And I'm tired of whining from the right, as if it were the simplest thing in the world to hop up and Make the World Safe For Democracy with one big anti-terror bang. Sure, nothing would make my heart gladder than to see Sadaam "$20,000 for suicide bombers, but not one red cent for economic liberalization or personal liberty!" Hussein cowering in terror as his vaunted Republican Guards flee like the rabbits they are. But Bush is not Emperor of the World. (For which we may all humbly thank God every day). He does not call up his legions and say "Hark! Go thee forth and crush the barbarians under they muscled heels!" The world is a complicated place. Solutions are never as straightforward as they seem when the only thing you have to conquer is a 40 of Old English.
All of you who think your heroes cut a straight, visionary line to the heart of the problems in front of them, guess again. Everyone from Churchill to Rockin' Ronnie scuttled hither and thither, seeming to lose their way, making missteps, and being harshly criticised from both sides for almost everything they did.
Is Bush's foreign policy working? Damned if I know. And you don't either. As with the politically fiery, but apparently fairly harmless, destruction of an empty training camp and an occupied aspirin factory, the real effect of what he's doing won't be obvious for quite a while. Until then, give the guy some slack. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be debating the proper foreign policy -- we should, and vigorously. But declaring the Administration's foreign policy a failure before it's had a chance to work has a small chance of making commentators look like prophets, and a big chance of making them look like big fat idiots.
Political invective at its finest: VodkaPundit on the possibility of Al Gore's using the 2004 election to "pour out his heart and vision for the American people".
Even Dems have to admit it -- that's creepy no matter which Al Gore comes to play. If it’s Audioanimatronic Gore from the “debates” in 2000, then pouring out his heart will have all the drama and excitement of a heavy Valium user discussing the intricacies of Boggle.
If we get Flop Sweat Al from earlier this year, his stump speech would be the Poli Sci 101 equivalent of Jabba the Hutt’s tongue after an orgy of Snickers bars – a never-ending source of regurgitated goo that was sickening sweet going down, but just plain sickening the second time around.
Eleanor Clift just attributed WorldCom and Xerox to Bush's failure to promulgate government regulations after Enron.
Because, you know, those regulations would be in effect by now.
And regulations regarding the consolidation of limited partnerships would certainly have prevented WorldCom from incorrectly restating expenses as capital expenditures.
I am hereby calling for a moratorium on people calling for more government regulations unless they actually know something about accounting, and have some idea about what regulations would work.
A brief survey of left and right accounting-savvy people I know shows that every single one of them wants reform, and none of them have the faintest clue as to how to implement it.
