It's tolerance, NOT "cultural libertarianism"

I posted this comment at Garry Reed's Examiner story "'Cultural Libertarianism' isn't new, it's just gone international."

Ms Southern's major error is suggesting that non-State forms of suppression can be just as bad as State censorship. Yes, the shaming, slanders, boycotts, protests, disinvites, and bans (from private organizations and/or property) can be very unfair. They can even temporarily ruin lives. But they're not nearly as terrible as a policeman's jackboot stomping on your face. Or prison.

Regarding the Breitbart piece: it muddies the waters terribly to call someone a "cultural libertarian" just because he or she's proudly "politically incorrect.". Several of these people support State policies that are anti-immigrant and/or anti-Muslim. There's nothing "libertarian" about that, and particularly nothing "culturally" libertarian.

Cheers to them, and anyone else, who is tolerant of other people's speech and expression. Who protest speech codes, reveal arbitrary and biased censorship on Internet platforms, expose hypocrisy, etc.. But I think the word "tolerance" will do quite nicely. I won't label anyone as any kind of libertarian when they're not.

Dick Clark, RIP

Host of the best tv game show of all time:

Do Twists of Fate Make A Difference?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In 1969, Diane Keaton auditioned for Woody Allen's play Play It Again, Sam. The problem was, Allen was to be her romantic counterpart, and she was noticeably taller than he is. She did get the part, got a Tony nomination for it, and Hollywood came calling.

What if she didn't get the part? Would the world have changed?

Well, yes and no. Keaton was talented enough that she would have gotten another part in some other play, probably would have received a Tony nomination, and again Hollywood would have come calling. Maybe it would have happened one or two years later, and maybe she would have in other movies than the ones she did. Maybe she wouldn't have done so many Woody Allen films, but maybe she would have been in equally-good or better ones.

Life would have turned out a little different for Diane Keaton, and for Hollywood. But not too different.

Violence as Myth

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

With the loosening of standards in the late 1960's and the introduction of the MPAA system, we began to see more instances of violence, and more graphic violence, in movies and television. Some of it has some merit; some of it makes me cringe. And yet no fictionalized violence compares to the other kind of violence we rarely see live, but often see reported on television. This is Violence as Myth.

Bill James, Yao Ming, Casey Anthony, War, Famine, and More

Just to get you all caught up on my day . . .

• I ask you to tell Congress to get the U.S. out of Iraq ASAP
• I reflect on the wisdom of baseball historian Bill James when it comes to things that are arguably even more important than baseball stats
• And I reflect on the retirement of Yao Ming, the 3,000th hit of Derek Jeter, the death of John Mackey, and the Casey Anthony trial
  

Atlas Shrugs, and So Do I

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

You would think that a novel so popular would have the major Hollywood studios bidding up the asking price for the rights. But it didn't happen with Left Behind. And it didn't happen with Atlas Shrugged. If Big Hollywood thought they could make a profit with either, they would have made either movie. Hollywood must have decided that while both novels were popular for niche audiences, neither had mass appeal.

And they aren't shy about making liberty-centered movies. Think about the three most successful franchises:

• Star Wars
• Lord of the Rings
• Harry Potter

Each of them provides a powerful message of liberty. But liberty is not the message the audience receives. Instead, they see "good vs. evil" and, since the audience member thinks of himself as a good guy, he's still willing to use State force to punish anything he thinks is evil.

When people go to movies, they're not hoping to be converted to a religion, let alone an ideology, and they're generally NOT thinking about opening their minds.

Max Schmeling, James Harrison, and Me

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[I was reminded] of a dream a friend told me about years ago, when George W. Bush was still President.

In the dream, Bush would keep showing up in various places and would try to be polite and friendly. But, my friend just wanted to avoid him.

I certainly feel that way with just about any past President, as well as the current one.

I don't want to be photographed with war criminals.

Adam Carolla Economics

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It seems ironic that someone could do something only for the hefty paycheck, and yet not be greedy. But if Carolla or Favre HAD been greedy, they would have lost their leverage. They were willing to walk away from their jobs and receive no money at all.

The same logic applies to the tax considerations of the wealthy.

Imagine someone earning supposedly $1,000/hour, but because of a 36% tax rate, nets $640/hour. Because the new tax rate will be 40%, his net income is $600/hour.

How Newspapers Can Save Themselves

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Teaser, "Two solutions: serialize novels, and create their own currency."

How To Baffle People

The weekend before last, I encountered an NFL Network show on the "Ten Best Quarterbacks of the 1980's."

I knew, or thought I knew, who the top 3 would be. I was mistaken. When John Elway came in at #4, I spent the segment devoted to him trying to think who #3 (or #2) would be: I KNEW that Dan Marino would be #3 or #2, and that Joe Montana would be #1. So who was the missing guy?

I started to go team-by-team, and I had it figured out by the end of the next commercial break. The mystery man turned out to be #3.

But I thought it was an intriguing mystery, and offered it to friends and family. I asked them, "Here are the NFL Network's Top Ten quarterbacks of the 1980's. Who's #3?"

10. Jim McMahon
9. Bernie Kosar
8. Dave Krieg
7. Joe Theismann
6. Boomer Esiason
5. Phil Simms
4. John Elway
3. ???
2. Dan Marino
1. Joe Montana

Someone eventually got it, as a second guess. But everyone initially gave the wrong answer.

I think the reason is that I gave out too many names. It threw them for a loop. When a list has several good-but-not-Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks on it (#10 through #5), one starts to be thinking in that category of player, and forgets the Hall of Famer.

That's why I asked the question; I thought it would "fool" people into not thinking of the obvious answer. I was right.

I think with a blank slate, if each person would have been asked who they thought were the ten best quarterbacks of the 1980's, they would have gone team-by-team and compiled their list, and this guy would have appeared on EVERYONE'S list.

But because they were bombarded with these other names, some who may have a dubious claim to being on the Top Ten, it got their minds on the wrong track and they forgot a Hall of Famer.

Not exactly a scientific psychological experiment - the sample size was too small - but to me it was a fascinating insight into how the mind works.

The taint of trade

"I've long thought that most of liberalism/progressivism as we know it today is basically aristocratic conservatism in Enlightenment drag, with the landed gentleman's disgust and disdain for the bourgeoisie and the vulgar world of commerce, contemptuous paternalism towards the peasantry, and unthinking presumption of his own superiority." - John Markley

Check out The Superfluous Man: The taint of trade

Juan Williams and my #1 Pet Peeve

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/juan-williams-and-my-1-pet-peeve

National Public Radio fired Juan Williams because he admitted on Fox television to becoming nervous when he sees Muslims on airplanes.

Congressional Republicans have responded to the firing by threatening to end NPR's federal funding.

Are the Republicans doing this because they're principled defenders of the Constitution, and the taxpayer, or simply to exploit an emotional partisan issue thick with anti-Muslim bigotry?

We agree that NPR should be de-funded, but not because they fired Juan Williams. If NPR was privately-funded their editorial and staffing decisions wouldn't be any of my business. Instead, I would simply be a consumer, free to listen, or not listen to NPR. But . . .

Thanks to the busy-body know-it-all politicians in Congress, everything NPR does IS my business, because I'm taxed to subsidize NPR, and so are you. This is my #1 pet peeve . . .

I hate being forced to pay for other people's "viewpoints," "journalism," or "art."

The real reason to stop giving NPR tax money isn't because Juan Williams was fired, or because the Democrats are "soft on Islam," or too "politically correct." We should do it because it's wrong, both morally and Constitutionally.

That's why I sent this letter to Congress . . .

I know that some GOP hacks are demanding the de-funding of NPR because of a politically-incorrect remark from Juan Williams. I, too urge you to support the de-funding of NPR, but you should do more . . .

Cut off the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting including PBS. Please also stop funding the National Endowments for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.

I know that these programs are just a tiny part of the federal budget. That's not the point.

If someone pointed a gun at you and demanded just one penny from you to pay for things you don't believe in, wouldn't you resent it? Well, that's how I feel about NPR, CfPB, PBS, and the arts and humanities programs. These programs . . .

* Violate the First Amendment by forcing me to subsidize other people's speech
* Violate the Ninth Amendment by attacking my freedom of conscience
* Violate the Tenth Amendment because these subsidies aren't authorized by the Constitution.

All federal funding of speech and the arts should be terminated IMMEDIATELY.

END LETTER

You have permission to borrow from or copy this letter, and you can send it to your Representative and Senators through DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

The End of our Culture?

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer, which will now be regularly appearing on Tuesdays.

A Wooden Personality

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer, a tribute to the late basketball coach John Wooden. Excerpt:

Following the 1947 season, Indiana State was invited to the (small school) NAIA basketball tournament. But the tournament barred the participation of black players. Wooden, who had a player, Clarence Walker, who was black, refused the invitation. The next year, the NAIA reversed this policy and Indiana St. accepted. Walker became the first African-American to play in the tournament.

What motivates regulators and prohibitionists?

See my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

People in other countries don't really matter to Americans. Yes, we may care about them in the abstract, but they have no real bearing on our lives. There are so many people in the world dying tragically or being punished unjustly every second, it's impossible to name them all, let alone grieve about them.

There is one reason why we care so much for our fellow Americans and our country. There is one reason, for instance, why a Northeasterner gets upset about school curriculum in a Midwestern state, or a Southerner is upset about the marriage laws in the Northeast, or that everyone's concerned about the number of people without health insurance.

The reason we care is based on a law.

It's a stupid, harmful law, but it seems every country has it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a country.

Social Morality, Political Immorality

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3396

"Why is the governmental use of force less offensive than bad manners?"

The Last Taboo

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It is legal for a woman to sleep with a married man. It is also legal for the woman to sell her story to the media and embarrass the man. But it is criminal for her to sell her silence to the married man. If she even suggests it, he's a "victim."

At the same time, it is perfectly legal for the man to buy her silence - so long as it is his idea, not hers.

A Proposal

If your religion (that is, your belief system, whatever it is, that you would want everyone else to have) can't flourish in an anarchic society (that is, a society without other humans forcing you into doing things), then 1) Your religion is fake; 2) Your religion, even if it's the true one, is malevolent; or 3) YOU are malevolent. There may be other options. I'm just throwing this out there. Comments?

Gambling and the culture of credit

Yesterday on ESPN's The Herd, Colin Cowherd mentioned a news item where a woman who was involved in catering a Notre Dame function was mailed a $29,000 check from the university that should have been a $29 gratuity. She called the university, left a message, and when she didn't hear back in a couple of days she went and spent all the money.

Cowherd condemned the woman's ethics. The he got emails saying, "Colin, you gamble, so how can you judge other people on their ethics?"

What's scary is that people who think like that then go out and vote.

Gambling can mean two things: betting, or reckless behavior. If you bet with money you can afford to lose, I can't imagine how anyone on God's green earth can call that unethical, immoral, or sinful.

The problems associated with gambling involve people who can no longer afford to gamble, but continue to do so with the money for next month's bills, or with borrowed money, or with stolen money.

Indeed , I believe our culture of credit, or creditism, fuels many social ills such as gambling addiction. As I've written:

"Under this system, the economy is supposed to grow by people borrowing and enjoying the fruits now, and working later to pay off the debts.

At the same time, banks lend far more money than they have on deposit (fractional reserve banking), and charge interest. In a true capitalist/savingist economy this would be considered fraud. But it drives the economy of creditism."

College loans, easy mortgages, and high-limit credit cards all subtly encourage us to consume now, as opposed to working and saving now and purchasing later. It also gave us the illusion of having more discretionary money than we actually had. And this, in turn would inspire many younger people to gamble more or party harder than they could really afford.

In a society of sound money and of production through investment rather than lending, there would be less money available for lending. This in turn would force more people to live within their means. College kids couldn't to do all the stuff they do now because banks would have the sense not to issue them credit cards.

Instant cash is to humans what the steak on the table is to Fido. You don't tell Fido, "I'm leaving for 5 minutes, and you better not touch the steak!" Instead, you put the steak out of reach. The same is true of us. The ATM cash and credit card in the wallet are more pleasing to think about than the future interest rates. In a savings-based economy, this easy borrowed cash would be out of reach. The money people own now would be the only money they can spend now; they can't spend the money now that they hope to earn in the future, because it wouldn't be lent to them. Therefore, they'd have to spend a larger proportion of their available cash on necessities, and would be forced to save if they want to party, buy cool new stuff, or go to Vegas.

Creditism creates the temptation for us to gamble now, try drugs now, purchase the cool new thing now, etc., because it provides the opportunity by lending us the money.

Those who want to rail against all the consumerism and immorality in society should stop blaming the casinos and advertisers, and start looking at the way entire culture is financed.

Sorry if this means I'm a jerk, but . . .

I'm not sorry to hear that Les Paul passed away.

Maybe if he was still of alert mind and I actually knew him personally, I'd feel differently. And maybe he was of alert mind, and if so I send condolences to his friends and family, those who will miss him.

But I won't "miss" him.

Here's why I say this:

1. His inventions and innovations - the electric guitar, studio over-dubbing, etc. - were developed long before I was born. During my own lifetime, I have no idea what Les Paul accomplished aside from receiving honors. His life's work was mostly accomplished before I was born.
2. His name was also a brand. And he was viewed as a god by those influenced by him. He got all the credit he was ever going to get. He made rock stardom possible, but he was never a rock star himself. Even he must have known he would never become as famous as Edison, Einstein, or Elvis. Even so, he got plenty of adoration in his lifetime.
3. Regarding the honors he apparently had not received but probably deserved, like the Medal of Freedom - if he hadn't received it by now, he wouldn't have anyway. By the age of 94, you've already received all the tributes you're going to get. That is, unless you live to 100, when you might get a re-hash of old tributes.

Maybe if a Fountain of Youth and Immortality is discovered tomorrow, I'd feel a twinge of regret that a genius like Les Paul didn't hang on just a little bit longer and may have faced our still-young century with renewed ambition and vigor. But that isn't going to happen, and Paul was 94.

The world is full of strange, tragic events. The passing of 94 year-old men who lived the American Dream isn't one of them.