Futures and Options

Yes, it’s juvenile, but it’s still nice to know that there are women out there who think conservative men are hot.  To be fair, Ms. Stuart doesn’t include me on the list, but if Stacey McCain’s speedo shot made it, then I figure I’ve got a fighting chance simply by virtue of being fully clothed.

Suzanna Logan hits nail squarely on the head in her analysis of what makes many conservative women attractive, but those traits are hardly reserved for conservatives.  I’ve met (and have as my closest friends) some phenomenally intelligent and articulate women who are quite liberal, though they are not officially members of either political party.

Still, Ms. Logan is spot-on about independent thought and intelligence being key components of a person’s attractiveness, and this is precisely why I find women like Meghan McCain to be more attractive than Ann Coulter.  Sure, Coulter’s delivery is more polished and her positions tend to be more nuanced, but Coulter’s penchant for provocative phraseology is predicated on preaching to the choir while McCain’s delivery is clearly much more welcoming and unoffensive.  It is one thing to tell the truth as you see it and do so unflinchingly (as I believe that both Coulter and McCain do), but it is quite another to deliberately phrase one’s positions in the most inflammatory of manners and expect to win people over as Coulter apparently does.  Harsh phrasing is a great way to achieve notariety, but McCain’s gentler language does far more to legitimize the conservative position in the minds of liberals than Coulter’s barbs.  It is primarily in this regard that McCain displays true independent thought as Coulter clings firmly to the tradition of producing tracts that have no appeal outside of the conservative echo chamber.

One of the most influential books in my life contains the following advice, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”  Those conservatives who are truly independent thinkers would do well to take such advice to heart.

Recently, there was an instructive exchange over at the Volokh Conspiracy between Eric Posner and Jonathan Adler on the causes and implications of the observed negative correlation between a country’s wealth and its impact on the environment. To be precise, this is not a simple linear correlation; it’s actually more of an inverted-U shaped curve, but it’s clearly an empirical refutation of the I-PAT hypothesis (environmental impact = population x affluence x technology) that was in vogue in the 1970’s.  Posner and Adler (and Posner again) discuss the potential causes of this relationship (specifically, the role of government institutions) and whether the same pattern will arise in the global warming context.  Well worth reading.

Well fellow fiscal conservatives, it’s our fault.

That’s the latest spin on this manufactured Swine Flu “crisis”.  Nichols hits all the bases in a brilliant piece of political propaganda.  Blaming the opposing party?  Check.  Ignoring the fact that there is functionally no difference between budgeting the money in the already bloated “stimulus” bill and passing an emergency appropriation?  Check.  Ignoring the fact that Chuck Schumer (Democrat) removed the funding in question from the bill?  Check.  Positing an apocalyptic scenario of martial law?  Check.

I’ll be blunt.  Nichols is engaging in pure and unadulterated fear-mongering when he suggests that Swine Flu, which has thus far afflicted only very mild symptoms on a couple dozen Americans, is a catastrophic risk.  Sure, it might be.  But tuberculosis might be a catastrophic risk too.  There is not so much as a single shred of evidence to suggest that, whatever happens, it could have been prevented had there been extra funding in the stimulus bill for “pandemic preparedness”.  Nichols’ remarks are classic political grandstanding and lack any substantive support for the premise that anything in this current scenario would have been helped by having greater funding.

Of course, a politician these days would be remiss if he failed to take the opportunity to use an unavoidable natural disaster as a propaganda piece.  I mean, they can’t just go around basing their campaigns on substance and appeal to intellectual positions.  That’s just crazy talk.

It just wouldn’t be the start of a new week without a fresh crisis and for this week they’ve tapped “Swine Flu”.  This means we get to spend the next few weeks listening to friends, family, news anchors, and random people on the internet throwing around terms like “pandemic”, “cytokine storm”, “H1N1″, and “type A virus strain”.  We even have people recommending wearing masks and/or disposable gloves at work to protect ourselves from this “dangerous outbreak”.

Since what’s fair for the goose is fair for the gander, I’m going to outline my own advice for how a person should deal with this new “threat”.

• Don’t be an idiot

That’s it.  Playing the percentages, you’ll be fine as long as you’re not doing incredibly stupid things like playing in hog feces or giving big sloppy kisses to people who have bad coughs and runny noses.  You’re not going to die.  Deal with it.

Of course, the wild and panicked reactions are still good for a laugh.

Last week, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare because they contribute to global warming. These findings will surely be challenged in court, but they will just as surely be upheld, given the considerable (and appropriate) deference that courts give to agencies for scientific determinations of this kind. The upshot is that the EPA will be moving forward to regulate carbon dioxide and a number of other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Indeed, the EPA hardly has a choice in this regard, after the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency does indeed have the power to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA. I think there were a lot of problems with that opinion, but it’s on the books, and so the question is what the next step is for greenhouse gas regulation.

Almost anything would be better than the EPA trying to shoehorn CO2 regulation into the existing framework of the Clean Air Act. The CAA was drafted to deal with more conventional air pollutants like nitrogen dioxide; it is simply not equipped to regulate the basic by-product of our entire, modern, industrialized economy. At the outset, the CAA requires EPA to set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for each pollutant–standards which state and local pollution control agencies would then have to meet for their area by whatever means they see fit. This system has worked reasonably well for some conventional pollutants, and it certainly has the virtue of giving local governments meaningful control over pollution policy. But setting a NAAQS for carbon dioxide would be entirely pointless, because the concentration of greenhouse gases (unlike many conventional pollutants) is not determined by local factors, so local governments would have absolutely no control over their concentration. Los Angeles could reduce its own carbon footprint to zero, and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference to its local greenhouse gas concentration as long as China and India keep building power plants.

And of course, EPA has the power to directly regulate both “stationary sources” and automobiles under the Clean Air Act. The threshold for regulation of a stationary source under the Act is currently 250 tons of pollutant per year, which for conventional pollutants usually applies to very large sources like power plants. But there are an incredible number of stationary sources, including things like apartment buildings, that emit more than 250 tons of CO2 per year. Is EPA really going to start regulating all of them?

And consider the enormous predicate decision that EPA would need to reach before embarking on such an adventure: what is our desired level of greenhouse gas emissions? That decision has undeniably enormous economic implications and is simply not one that can be reached with a narrow, objective analysis of scientific data. This is not like figuring out how much mercury is acceptable in drinking water. Capping greenhouse gas emissions will have an tremendous impact on the world’s economic activity for decades. If that is a decision that must be made, Congress is the body that has to do it. A nominally politically accountable government agency acting as the Soup Nazi of greenhouse gases is not a future that any of us should welcome, whether you accept the global warming science or not.

Reason had an excellent piece back in 2000 about the history of Earth Day and the doom and gloom predictions made by the people who organized the very first Earth Day back in 1970.  I came across it last night and decided that it would be fun to pull out a few of more interesting assertions made by the proponents nearly 40 years ago.

Let’s start with my favorite.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years.  If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” – Kenneth Watt (Ecologist at UC Davis, from a speech given at Swarthmore in 1970)

Well now.  That was spectacularly wrong.  Of course, maybe in 40 years it will be “right” again; after all, the scientific support for global warming does appear to be waning.

And, let’s not forget what the issue was for the first Earth Day, the “Population Bomb.”

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make.” – Paul Erlich, biologist, Stanford University, 1970

“The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” – Paul Erlich, 1970

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” – Denis Hayes, chief organizer of the first Earth Day, 1970

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” – Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University, 1970 (emphasis original)

And now, what actually happened:

• Since 1970, food production per person has increased by 26%
• The increase in food production has not been accompanied by increased land use, so habitats have not been destroyed

As Reason points out, the driving cause of world hunger is not overpopulation, but poverty.  Famine is caused almost entirely by political events and oppressive governments.  To truly combat poverty and world hunger one would be better to forcibly eliminate dictatorships and military governments like those found in Somalia or Darfur.  The answer is not giving the people aid (though this is, of course, a legitimate means of helping during the interim), but in deposing dictators and helping to establish more progressive governments.

Of course, the doom and gloomers made some nasty predictions about pollution too.

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” – Life magazine, 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” – Kenneth Watt

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” – Paul Erlich

And now, what really happened:

• Carbon monoxide and sulfur levels in air have dropped more than 75% since 1970
• Particulates are down over 50% since the 1950s, despite the fact that current tests for particulates include particles far smaller than those included in the 1950s numbers
• Ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels have dropped 30% since 1970
• The number of days with smog in major US cities have dropped by more than 60% since 1988
• Between 1960 and 1970 (before any clean air laws came into effect), particulates dropped by 25%
• It takes more than 20 new cars to match the same total emissions as one 1960’s-era vehicle

And let’s not forget pesticides.

Paul Erlich predicted, in 1970, that a 1973 study by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would find “that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.”

Of course, we now know that DDT is not responsible for the multitude of negative effects that were once assigned to it.  We do know, however, that nearly 100 million people have died from malaria and over 14.5 billion cases of malaria have been reported since DDT was banned.  However, in Sri Lanka in 1963, when DDT spraying was still in effect, there were only 17 cases of malaria and no deaths.  Prior to the introduction of DDT, Sri Lanka experienced as many as 2.8 million infections and 7,300 deaths per year from malaria.  Thank heavens that we have banned this damnable life-saving pesticide!  Of course, if DDT is banned and more people are dying, I guess that makes the “population bomb” less worrisome, which makes a cynical part of me wonder if that’s not what the Earth Day people were after all along.

The Reason article goes into more detail and it’s definitely worth a read; I strongly encourage everyone to look through it.  As for myself, I’ll close with a quote from Robert Heinlein’s Lazarus Long character that seems particularly appropriate here:

There hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.’” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature”—but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purpose of men) the “Naturist” reveals his hatred for his own race—i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of “Naturist” such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women—it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly “natural.”

In celebration of Earth Week (and Earth Day), Iowahawk is hosting his annual Virtual Cruise-In for all of us unenlightened, high carbon footprint gearheads.  If the sound of a pushrod V8 with high-lift cams makes life worth living and the wafting scent of unburned Harley hydrocarbons is like a siren song for your soul, then you owe it to yourself to stop by Iowahawk’s site and check it out.  There’s a lot of very nice iron on display for your ogling pleasure.

I join Zenmervolt in applauding the Ninth Circuit’s decision to incorporate the Second Amendment. I’m not a huge fan of the selective incorporation doctrine (it’s another one of those mushy multi-factor made-up balancing tests), but the reality is it’s here to stay, and any court applying the doctrine honestly would have to come to the same conclusion the Ninth Circuit did yesterday.

I write separately to note that although the plaintiffs challenging the county’s gun ban won on the incorporation issue, they actually lost the overall case. The Court found that the ban on possession on county lands fell within the “sensitive places” exception to the Second Amendment right highlighted by the Heller opinion. The Court didn’t go into much detail in explaining why all “county lands” are considered “sensitive places” for purposes of the Second Amendment; certainly there would be a more compelling justification for the ban in some particular venues than in others. This sort of question highlights the relative novelty of Second Amendment litigation. Unlike, say, the First or Fourth Amendments (but not the Third Amendment), which are backed up by reams of caselaw analyzing how those rights apply in particular circumstances, the precise scope of the Second Amendment right is yet to be delineated. Once the incorporation hurdle has been passed (and I have little doubt that most of the other Circuits, and eventually the Supreme Court, will follow the Ninth’s lead), the rubber will really meet the road, and Courts will get down to the gritty business of figuring out what is and isn’t a permissible limitation of the right to bear arms. Stay tuned.

And for a more expert analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and links to other relevant sources, see Eugene Volokh’s post here.

But hey, we’re going to cut $100 million! (Pay no attention to the fact that this represents only 0.003% of the total $3.5 trillion budget.)

Greg Mankiw offers the following comparison using numbers that are more readily comprehensible to those of us who don’t have trillions at our disposal:

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Hey, at least it looks like Obama’s trying to make cuts.  I mean, his policies may be wrong but at least he’s symbolically in the right place.  Right?

*crickets*

This is a Very Good Thing.

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.¹⁷ We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.¹⁸

Perhaps even more telling, however, is the footnote cited at the end of that landmark finding (bold is my own):

¹⁸The County and its amici point out that, however universal its earlier support, the right to keep and bear arms has now become controversial. See generally Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989). But we do not measure the protection the Constitution affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of the Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then the people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain.

This seems to be a significant blow to the concept of judicial activism, especially coming from the 9th Circuit which has a history of interpretive rulings.

This is a victory.  It isn’t the victory, but it’s a solid win.  Thanks to Cato for bringing this to my attention.