« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
May 25, 2005
Book Questions
Tim Sandefur is shutting down his blog Freespace. I'm sad to see it go. In one of his last few posts he asked that I answer these questions on books. As a parting farewell I'll oblige him with this chainmail type post.
1. Total Number of Books I’ve Owned:
No idea. One thing I do know is I haven't come close to reading all of them. I've also read several books I've never owned so I don't know that this is the best question.
2. Last Book I Bought:
Running Money by Andy Kessler (I am also on the verge of ordering Liberty for Latin America by Alvaro Vargas Llosa)
3. Last Book I Read:
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
4. Five Books That Mean A Lot to Me:
1) Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman
2) The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
3) Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
4) A Soldier of The Great War by Mark Helprin
5) Eat the Rich by P.J. O'Rourke
5. Tag five people and have them do this on their blog.
I'll do three from my Daily 15 blogroll: Alfonso Trujillo, Patrick Finucane, and Trey Givens. All are my age, but come from different ends of the political spectrum. I think the responses to question 4 make this worthwhile so hopefully they'll find some time to do it. If anyone else is interested, give it a shot and let me know.
Update: Adding two more to make it five. The Eclectic Econoclast and Bloxy-Moron. You guys are up. I'm done.
Update II: I've changed the links above to go directly to the book posts once people complete them. Easier to follow the chain that way.
Posted by Peter Mork at 8:53 AM | Comments | TrackBack
May 23, 2005
People v. McKay
One thing the current battle over judicial nominations has got me doing is reading the actual written opinions of the nominees. I found this conclusion from Justice Janice Brown in People v. McKay particularly enlightening. The case involved a bicyclist who was stopped for riding against traffic. Upon failure to produce identification the defendant was subsequently arrested and searched, which produced a packet meth hidden in his sock.
The question before the court asked under what circumstances can officers take an individual into custody for failing to produce identification, and thus was the search legal? Of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown was the lone voice of dissent.
CONCLUSION In the spring of 1963, civil rights protests in Birmingham united this country in a new way. Seeing peaceful protesters jabbed with cattle prods, held at bay by snarling police dogs, and flattened by powerful streams of water from fire hoses galvanized the nation. Without being constitutional scholars, we understood violence, coercion, and oppression. We understood what constitutional limits are designed to restrain. We reclaimed our constitutional aspirations. What is happening now is more subtle, more diffuse, and less visible, but it is only a difference in degree. If harm is still being done to people because they are black, or brown, or poor, the oppression is not lessened by the absence of television cameras.
I do not know Mr. McKay’s ethnic background. One thing I would bet on: he was not riding his bike a few doors down from his home in Bel Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos Verdes—places where no resident would be arrested for riding the “wrong way” on a bicycle whether he had his driver’s license or not. Well . . . it would not get anyone arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood. That is the problem. And it matters. “The rule of law implies justice and equality in its application.” ( Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972) 405 U.S. 156, 171.) If we are committed to a rule of law that applies equally to “minorities as well as majorities, to the poor as well as the rich,” we cannot countenance standards that permit and encourage discriminatory enforcement. (Ibid.)
According to Atwater, a full custodial arrest for a trivial infraction is constitutionally permissible. Broad powers to search incident to an arrest have a long common law and constitutional history. (Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation, supra, at pp. 28-29.) However, if full custodial arrest is authorized for trivial offenses, the power to search should be constrained. If broad searches incident to arrest are permitted, the power to effect a full custodial arrest should be limited. To permit both full custodial arrest for minor offenses and virtually unlimited authority to search incident to such an arrest allows officers to push past the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. When officers may arrest for minor offenses, conduct virtually unlimited searches, and are granted unbounded and unreviewable discretion to select the target of such enforcement activity, the resulting search cannot be constitutionally permissible.
It is certainly possible to argue that the rationale of Atwater can be extended to encompass what happened here. The question is why we should do so. It is clear the Legislature could not authorize the kind of standardless discretion the court confers in this case. Why should the court permit officers to do indirectly what the Constitution directly prohibits? How can such an action be deemed constitutionally reasonable? And if we insist it is, can we make any credible claim to a commitment to equal justice and equal treatment under law?
Well . . . . No. Not exactly.
BROWN, J.
Posted by Peter Mork at 12:02 PM | Comments | TrackBack
May 21, 2005
E3 and Me
Thanks to the generosity of my friend Dan Kit, last Wednesday I got out of the library and bussed up with his company and some other friends to E3 in Los Angeles. In case you don't know, E3 is the yearly video game expo that debuts the latest and greatest the industry has to offer. In a word: impressive.
The Los Angeles Convention Center was absolutely packed with wait times to see some game premiers 2 hours plus. Keep in mind that passes to the event are tough to come by and this isn't an event for teenagers with their parents in tow: no one under 18 is allowed through the doors. Believe me, walking into the event you begin to understand the reason that video game sales currently exceed the movie industry's annual box office draw.
Apart from the unveiling of Darkwatch, a couple highlights were the 360 degree screen in the EA games exhibit featuring the Xbox 360, the premier for the Playstation 3, and Nintendo was also there with news of their next generation system. It's unbelievable what these new systems are capable of producing, not only in terms of graphics, but also as a media hub for your living room.
On that note, the same day we were running around the Convention Center floor taking in all we could, Holman Jenkins published an appropriately titled article "What the Fuss Is All About". I found out last Wednesday. Give his piece a read to find out for yourself:
...investors were wondering if Microsoft would ever have a second act after its desktop dominance. The drunk-on-hype rollout of its new game machine, Xbox 360, which continues this week on the cover of Time magazine, is Bill Gates's attempt to answer with a resounding "you betcha."
Let's hope his timing is right, because Microsoft is promoting an ambitious reordering of the tech landscape around the idea of "convergence." If you're a cable TV provider, look out. If you're Intel, get ready to become a smaller fish in a bigger pond. If you thought the latest, fastest and best always ends up in a business desktop, think again. All that was familiar, at least since the PC became techdom's central object in the mid-1980s, is being torn asunder.
To get the machine it wanted, Microsoft has put itself in direct competition with former best friends, computer makers like Dell and HP. To get the chip it wanted, it dumped a long-time ally, Intel, and signed up IBM -- which also makes chips for Apple as well as forthcoming game machines from Sony and Nintendo.
Even so, Microsoft, which once left hardware to others, is taking proprietary ownership of the Xbox "chipsets," signaling an interesting reintegration of software, semiconductors and end-user gadgetry.
Then there's Xbox Live. Some call the new game machine Microsoft's Trojan horse in the living room, but the sneak attack may really come from the broadband network that Microsoft has created to support online gaming and much more.
Even users of the free version will be entitled to chat and trade text messages with fellow subscribers. With a reported 1.8 million subscribers, Xbox live is already effectively the largest provider of voice-over-Internet connections, posing a direct threat to current and would-be phone operators. And voice is just the beginning. Xbox 360 will also have a large hard drive -- large enough to hold plenty of music and video files. That means -- you guessed it -- Microsoft is positioning itself to be a supplier of video on demand in competition with cable operators, who live in dread of being relegated to a "dumb pipe."
Posted by Peter Mork at 6:38 PM | Comments | TrackBack
May 17, 2005
Quote of the Day: North Korea
"Grandsons are condemned to life-long terms as slave laborers alongside their grandfathers, both equally helpless in the brutal surroundings. Prisoners are arbitrarily murdered by security guards. Women suffer from forced abortions at the hands of unlicensed doctors. Newborn babies are beaten to death. And sons and daughters are publicly executed in front of their mothers. This is... happening at this moment inside the gulags of North Korea. The stories of gulag survivors are often too horrible to believe for the citizens of civilized countries"-- South Korean human rights activist Young Howard, writing in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
I often think that decades from now my children and grandchildren will look back at Kim Jong-il's North Korea, and in the same way that I've tried to comprehend the horror Hitler's Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, simply ask "How did the world allow this to happen?"
At the minimum, we need to keep these atrocities front and center in the news so that they cannot be ignored by the public at large.
Hat Tip: OpinionJournal's Political Diary
Posted by Peter Mork at 7:19 AM | Comments | TrackBack
May 14, 2005
Free Trade... but only when and where they want it
In case you missed it, the Bush administration caved yesterday to the textile lobby in Washington. Someone needs to hold these guys accountable and point out their rhetoric on free trade too often doesn't match their actions. You would think with a vote on CAFTA fast approaching, consitancy on the benefits of free trade would be a good thing. Here is the report from the AP:
U.S. Textile Makers Praise Chinese Quotas
WASHINGTON - U.S. textile and clothing manufacturers are praising the Bush administration for re-imposing quotas on Chinese-made cotton trousers, cotton knit shirts and underwear, saying the quick action was needed to save thousands of American jobs.
But retailers are complaining that the new limits on Chinese imports and more that are expected to be imposed on other clothing categories will simply mean higher prices for American consumers.
The administration announced late Friday that it was re-imposing quotas in the three clothing categories, where it had launched its own investigations in early April.
Maybe the administration should consider reading it's own website. They could start with this page "The Benefits of Trade".
Posted by Peter Mork at 2:19 PM | Comments | TrackBack
May 12, 2005
Next Up: Immigration Reform
Good news from the Union-Tribune this morning:
WASHINGTON – Sens. John McCain and Edward M. Kennedy are putting together an immigration bill that would subject illegal immigrants to fines, but allow them to remain in the United States and earn a chance to apply for permanent residency.
The measure is an alternative to President Bush's guest worker proposal sought by employers but opposed by many conservatives.
Speaking Thursday at the Naval Academy, McCain, R-Ariz., said he and Kennedy, D-Mass., hoped to introduce their legislation next week.
Under their proposal, illegal immigrants would get three-year visas that could be renewed once. After completing six years of work, the immigrants would be eligible to "get in the back of the line" to apply for permanent legal residency, McCain said.
Posted by Peter Mork at 8:51 AM | Comments | TrackBack
May 11, 2005
Social Security a "Safety Net"?
Great letter to the editor from Don Boudreaux:
Wednesday, May 4, 2005This was a letter to the editor to the New York Times.
To the Editor:
Whether Social Security is the greatest innovation since opposable thumbs or a looming disaster, it is not properly described as a “safety net” (“Introducing Private Investments into the Safety Net,” A1, Feb. 3). A safety net is a last resort – protection that people do not plan to use, or even want to use, but are content to use in the event of mishaps.
Retirement is no mishap. It’s anticipated, planned, and desirable. As currently structured and endorsed, Social Security isn't meant to catch only people who fall from life’s ordinary and expected institutional supports; it’s designed to be a critical part of these expected supports.
Describing Social Security as a “safety net” is heavy on emotional uumph and light on accuracy.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Posted by Peter Mork at 12:57 PM | Comments | TrackBack
May 9, 2005
Need Some Votes? Blame a Foreigner
Tom Palmer beat me to this story but I'll post on it anyway. Foreign private equity firms, specifically those from the U.S., are under attack by politicians seeking votes in Germany. As a recent Business Week article reported:
Few places have been hit harder by the decline of the German steel industry than Gelsenkirchen, a city of 271,000 in the Ruhr Valley where unemployment, at 26%, is among the worst in the nation. So when Franz Müntefering, chairman of the governing Social Democrats, likened foreign buyout artists to "swarms of locusts sucking the substance" from German companies, that was just what Alfred Schleu was yearning to hear. "It's about time someone told it like it is," says Schleu, local chief of IG Metall, the union that represents 2.4 million workers in industries such as steel and autos...
Schröder & Co. are desperate. Polls show the state will fall to the opposition Christian Democrats in May 22 elections, possibly bringing the end of Schröder's coalition government with the Green Party. "[The attacks] are coming from someone who has his back to the wall," says Peter Hammermann, Munich-based managing director of Barclays Private Equity Co. in Germany. In fact, Müntefering's critique of foreign capital doesn't go far enough for some on the hard left, who pelted him with eggs at a May 1 rally in Duisburg.
Head over and read the whole article for more details, but the subject of the piece got me wondering about another topic. Is it simply a fact of life that politicians can score easy political points by bashing foreigners?
The problem is clearly not confined to Germany. Turn on C-Span and it won't be long before you'll hear Republicans from Sen. Lindsey Graham and Treasury Secretary John Snow to Democrats like Sen. John Kerry and Chuck Schumer blaming U.S. job losses on "Chinese currency manipulation" and "Asian bankers."
The insincerity of their attacks can be demonstrated by asking them a few simple questions.
First off, if China is "manipulating" it's currency by targeting the dollar, what do you propose they target in its place? As the late Bob Bartley pointed out, floating currencies do not represent free-markets. They need to target something in order to control inflation, which China has indeed tamed since they began the dollar policy. So why exactly do they need a new target and what exactly should it be? I doubt any have an answer.
Secondly, politicians are constantly scaring voters with predictions of jobs heading to Mexico, China, or India. But as Dan Griswold at the Cato Institute has pointed out in the past, U.S. companies directly invest more in the tiny Netherlands than the three aforementioned countries combined. Why no mention of the Dutch stealing our jobs? Could it be that a nation of wealthier, predominantly white Europeans doesn't get them the desired effect? You tell me.
As the world becomes more and more intertwined due to globalization you would think this nasty rhetoric would be ebbing, but as evidenced by the above that is far from the case. The sooner people wise up to this nasty political game the better. Instead of looking across the ocean for the source of thier countries' woes, politicians from Germany to the U.S. might finally come to the realization that the real problem lie no further than the mirror.
Posted by Peter Mork at 10:46 PM | Comments | TrackBack
May 5, 2005
Immigration Reform Still on the Table
The Wall Street Journal had a nice editorial yesterday on the subject of immigration reform:
Immigration Reality Check
"Seal the border" populists on cable news and talk radio maintain that anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S. is ascendant. But a recent Senate vote shows more support for the type of guest-worker initiative that President Bush proposes. Economic reality bites -- even in Congress.
Last month 53 Senators voted for a temporary-visa program to address labor demands in the agriculture industry. And while that was fewer than the 60 votes needed to add the measure to an Iraq spending bill, it does indicate a recognition by a majority of Senators that enforcement-only approaches to illegal immigration won't work.
While the measure was somewhat more narrow than I would hope for, it was encouraging that it included a component that would give illegal immigrants, whom could pass a background check, temporary status and the ability to earn a green card. That this received the support of a majority of Senators is clearly a positive sign.
I especially liked the end of the editorial which concluded:
So long as the U.S. shares a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, we'll never reduce the illegal flow with punitive measures that ignore the market forces luring foreign workers here in the first place. The best way to decrease the number of illegal crossings, while also satisfying our economic needs, is to give immigrants more legal ways to come. Under the World War II-era bracero program, which allowed Mexican workers entry to meet the labor demands of American growers, illegal border crossings fell.
The U.S. border-enforcement budget has quintupled since 1993 -- one of the highest growth rates in the federal government after defense spending. Yet the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has continued to increase. Readers may remember the days when conservatives criticized liberals for throwing money at policies that aren't working.
With its majority Senate support, the AgJobs bill is a sign that Mr. Bush's guest-worker idea isn't as dead as advertised by the anti-immigration right. It deserves to be considered as a stand-alone measure, and the sooner the better. Everyone complains about the lack of bipartisanship in Washington. But here's a case where business and labor have joined with Democrats and Republicans to address what all agree is a problem. So why not get it done?
As you have probably noticed Social Security reform and immigration reform are the two political issues I tend to focus on in my posts. While Social Security reform seems to get a good deal more attention from me, it's only because it's currently in the news 24-7.
If I had a choice (which I don’t) I’d make immigration reform the first priority of Congress. A well written bill, that simply reflected the ideals this country was founded on, could both instantly and dramatically improve the lives of millions of people. How often does legislation have that kind of effect? Not very often.
I’ll echo the Journal in a plea to Congress: please, get it done.
Posted by Peter Mork at 9:39 AM | Comments | TrackBack
May 3, 2005
Pozen Returns
Democrat Robert Pozen, the architect of “progressive indexing,” has another op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today defending his plan. Not only does he do a good job clarifying his proposal, but he also corrects a mistake he made in his first op-ed by clearly stating that the $3.8 trillion in unfunded liabilities is a present value figure.
Judging any reform plan relative to scheduled benefits is misguided. The schedule represents the benefits we have promised but do not have the money to deliver. That is why Social Security has a long-term deficit with a present value of $3.8 trillion. If the litmus test of a reform plan is not cutting scheduled benefits for any significant group of workers, then no viable plan to restore Social Security's solvency will pass muster.
Posted by Peter Mork at 4:07 PM | Comments | TrackBack
May 1, 2005
May Day
There is a great post on May Day over at Catallarchy. When I get some free time I'll definitely be going through all the posts they link to. The few I read were excellent.