The Dish

Wow, the news these days is sure offering me little opportunity to diversify my writing without simultaneously ignoring two of my favorite topics (nanny/surveillance-stateism and Mitt Romney).  From the NY Times today, we learn that it’s not just banning smoking and licensing photography on the minds of the elected officials of Gotham, but also banning mean words.

Apparently, the NYC City Council banned the n-word earlier this year.  Now, some of its members want to ban the word for a female dog that starts with "b."  The argument behind the proposed ban is that "The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates ‘a paradigm of shame and indignity’ for all women."

First, let me say that I’ve been called the "b" word plenty of times in my life.  I can’t think of a single time when I’ve felt hated, shamed, or as if my dignity were being stripped.  Actually, in the world of corporate law, being called the "b" word by an adversary was, well, a compliment, because among other things, it showed how whiny and pathetic the person who said it, who presumably failed to get their way on some point or other, truly was– while simultaneously indicating my own effectiveness.  But I digress.

Friends know that I’m a ridiculously politically-correct person. I physically bristle when I hear the "n" word used, even in, say, a Kanye West song (so I listen to little rap, and don’t allow a lot of it in my house).  I hate terms like that word.  And even though I don’t really hate the "b" word, I can understand why it’s offensive to a lot of women (if not me personally)– and I absolutely can understand why the "h" word (ends in "o") is offensive to a lot of women– if I were called that, I probably would go ballistic.

Still, the members of the NYC City Council who are pursuing this ban seem to have forgotten three fundamental things: first, we have a First Amendment in this country, and on a strict interpretation at least, it should cover the use of words like these, offensive as they may be; second, what lawmakers should be concerning themselves with is protecting the public from actual violence– not hurt feelings or a sense of degradation; and third, bans like this haven’t tended to work well in other contexts.

Oh yes, those backing this plan will say (I have no doubt), but using words like these degrades women (or African-Americans) making them all the more susceptible to violent behavior because it dehumanizes them.  But there is degrading, and then there’s dehumanizing.  Degrading is something that isn’t very nice, but ultimately, is behavior that by any reasonable assessment is not going to pave the way for mass lynchings, widespread gang rape, or efforts to murder an entire group.  Dehumanizing, on a grand scale, may, possibly, arguably, lead to these things, but merely slinging around nasty, mean, and offensive words is not the first step towards the Fourth Reich.  And it’s sad that those backing this bill seem to think that bad words being used is so serious as to warrant anti-First Amendment legislative action– something we should always be very reluctant to pursue.

With a bit of luck, since only 19 out of 51 council members are backing this plan, it will be shot down in flames.  And maybe in time the person sponsoring it will develop a thicker skin, and a recognition that government isn’t an appropriate way of stopping objectionable, but essentially benign, behavior. But, based on the way things seem to be going in NYC these days, I wouldn’t count on it.

www.lizmair.com

As Ron Gunzburger pointed out, Alan Keyes has apparently been operating his own draft site for a while now. And now it seems there will be some Keyes volunteers (read: Keyes relatives) headed to Ames for the straw poll. Will somebody just commit this man, already?

Although I have to admit I’d like to see a presidential campaign of Barack Obama re-matched with Alan Keyes. It would be a 70%-27% race all over again.

There has been some discussion on various blogs lately about the political consequences of rising Hispanic immigration and a Hispanic-American population. National Review‘s David Frum frets that Hispanics’ liberal tendencies will aid the Democrats and push them further to the left. Ezra Klein of the American Prospect, looking at the question from the left, celebrates the same trend. Megan McArdle tells Republicans not to worry too much because immigrant groups historically have become more conservative over time. (By the way, it appears that she is joining this organization shortly.)

This gives me the opportunity to promote my new book, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. One of the arguments I make in it is that the immigration issue opens some door for Republicans in the black community. Polls show that blacks largely share Republicans’ concerns about Hispanic immigration. Blacks view Hispanics as rivals for jobs and housing. It stands to reason that they will increasingly become political rivals as well.

I suggest that with blacks and Hispanics both being part of the Democratic coalition, the party will tend to side with the Hispanics down the road because they are a larger and faster growing population group. As blacks begin to perceive this, they could become receptive to Republican outreach if the party is smart enough to make the effort. If, as I have said earlier, the Democrats will almost certainly win next year, such an idea may become attractive in 2009.

I thought it was interesting that the only Republican to attend the NAACP’s candidate forum on July 12 was Congressman Tom Tancredo, whose principal issue is sealing the border and deporting all illegal immigrants. His anti-immigrant message got a very respectful hearing from the NAACP delegates and well more than a polite round of applause.

My purpose is not to defend immigrant-bashing or suggest that it is good politics. But if the Republicans are going to go down that road, they might as well get whatever value there is in it insofar as it creates opportunities to attract voters in sympathy with that viewpoint. I think the black community could be a ripe target.

This YouTube was put up by an account called “gaysforgiuliani.”

Something tells me they’re not actually trying to help him.

 

   

 

 

 

Here’s some fascinating viewing from Iowa.  So, if Rudy weren’t running, he’d be backing McCain?  Well, as a 2000 McCain supporter who currently favors Rudy, I get where he’s coming from.

I wonder, however, whether this is a not-very-concealed ploy to ensure that everyone in Iowa knows that when McCain drops out (that might be an "if," but for now, I’ll treat it as a "when"), Rudy’s the natural person for McCainiacs to throw their support to?  Clearly, they won’t be throwing support to Romney (no matter how much he may be trying for that), but I think Fred Thompson may appeal to some of them who are pro-life or who are the "clean government" types who actually really like McCain-Feingold (which Fred of course voted for).

www.lizmair.com

Last word on taxes/spending for today, I promise.

One reason for the perception of regressive taxation is the fact that a lot of people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. I’ve worked jobs towards the bottom end of the ladder, and all you have to do to is read your pay stub and look at the deductions. You know you can get a refund on the federal income taxes, but the payroll stuff is all gone.

So when politicians talk about cutting income taxes, this really means nothing to you, at least not directly. And when you see that the tax cuts are aimed at people making more money, without any real immediate benefit for people in the low-end jobs, you can’t escape the feeling that the whole tax system works this way, as opposed to just the distribution of the latest round of cuts. Changing the tax system to make it less progressive leads to the misperception that it’s not progressive at all.

So what’s the solution to this P.R. problem? I’m not sure there really is one.

Technically this is more a great band moment than a guitar moment, but in this case I’m focusing on the brilliant lead guitar work of Steve Hackett. I think he really pushed the other members of the classic Genesis lineup to their absolute limits.

(Note to Eric: click on the link before posting.)

That’s what I get for working two jobs today and rushing. I apologize and stand corrected.

Having said that, I’m sticking to my overall points on progressive taxation and why I prefer it to flat systems.

The data I cited include all federal taxes including the payroll tax. (Note to Eric: click on the link before posting.) They do not, however, include state and local taxes. These are often assumed to be regressive, but I don’t see it. The property tax is essentially progressive because one has to be relatively well off to own a house, and almost every state has a progressive income tax. So my guess is that while states vary in the degree of their progressivity, overall they probably mirror the federal tax distribution.

I appreciate Liz’s post because every once in a while I get sympathetic to the idea that passive surveillance might be a reasonable price to pay for increased security. But obviously if it doesn’t work, then there is clearly no justification for it.

On a related point, I sometimes think there may be some value in a domestic intelligence service to pursue terrorists. The problem with relying solely on the FBI to do this job is its law enforcement focus–it is necessarily concerned with gathering evidence in such a way that it can be presented in court. But I can see times when all we want is the information–say about a looming attack–even if it means collecting it in a way that would be inadmissible in court.

Britain has an agency that does exactly this: MI5. It is separate and supplementary to Britain’s version of the FBI, Scotland Yard. Both agencies have had long and deep experience with terrorism in that country owing to the Irish problem. Therefore, one would think that they would be far more effective than the FBI in preventing terrorist incidents. Yet London has not been spared Islamic terrorist incidents, while we have had none since 9/11.

My point is that if there were clear and demonstrable evidence that sacrificing our liberties to pervasive video surveillance and a domestic spy agency were effective then it would be reasonable to consider those options. But if they have no record of effectiveness in a country with considerable experience using them, then the case for moving in that direction becomes nonexistent.