Archives for the 'Culture' Category
CEI Encounter With Sopranos “Tony” in DC
Welcome to OpenMarket.org! Please consider Subscribing to our RSS feed, so you don’t miss any of the news and analysis brought to you by CEI’s policy experts.
In today’s fluff news, CEI Warren Brookes journalism fellow Lene Johansen got a nice mention in the Washington Post (Amy Argetsinger’s Reliable Source) and DC Examiner (Patrick Gavin’s Yeas and Nays). The dynamic writer from Norway met the chief Sopranos mobster at Washington’s famous Hay-Adams Hotel on Wednesday night, when a small group of free market warriors gathered to imbibe a few posh cocktails. Anyhow, check out the write up + picture of Lene that appears in both papers.
How ethanol producers see the world
From The Onion. (Yes, it’s ironic. )
Eat a Kangaroo to Save the Environment?
A story in the Wall Street Journal suggests it is time to once again eat kangaroos, to protect the environment, and cope with Kangaroo overpopulation problems. “Greenpeace has recommended that Australians substitute kangaroo meat for consumption of other red meats to reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas from flatulent cattle and sheep. Kangaroo meat is a sought-after meal in Australian restaurants and charcuteries. Recipes like kangaroo escalopes with spinach and anchovy butter, kangaroo tail soup, or kangaroo strip loin pan roasted on balsamic mash are not unusual on the menus of fine restaurants.”
Of course, as Doug Bandow noted earlier today, eating animals can also save endangered species by giving people an incentive to harvest them rather than destroying their habitat or exterminating them. People owning animals helps ensure their survival, too: that’s part of why there are a heck of a lot more chickens than passenger pigeons (a now extinct species which were once as numerous in America as chickens are today), and far more cattle than buffalo.
Eating locally, touted as good for the environment, often isn’t: one study found it was better for the environment for English people to eat lamb that was imported from New Zealand rather than raised in England. And culinary prejudices often keep people from eating local foods that truly do tax the environment less, like cicadas, which are very tasty when microwaved for just a short time, but which few people eat despite the fact that they can easily be collected in large quantities when they periodically emerge from the earth. (In the Washington, D.C. suburbs, they come out in huge numbers once every 17 years).
The Rhetorical Impact of the Global Warming Bandwagon
Cellulosic ethanol—derived from wood scraps and other forms of inedible plant mass– may or may not turn out to be a real technological breakthrough. On the one hand, it could reduce the ruinous impacts of grain-based ethanol on food prices. On the other hand, the extensive set of federal mandates and subsidies for cellulosic ethanol is not a good omen—good technologies rarely need federal help, and the existence of federal aid is often a tip-off that a new technology is a loser.
But here’s another question: if cellulosic ethanol does take off, what impact would that have on the clichés we use? Would we have to scrap the old saying about separating the wheat from the chaff, and instead talk about separating the chaff from the wheat?
Fat Discrimination Bills Lumber Forward
A Chicago Tribune story notes that a few jurisdictions now ban discrimination against fat people (generally as part of general bans on discrimination based on physical appearance), and that Massachusetts is now considering specifically banning discrimination against fat people (as some municipalities do). (The only federal law touching on the subject is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which some courts have said may cover “morbid obesity” (see Cook v. Rhode Island), but which does not cover ordinary fatness; moreover, some courts say that obesity is not a disability because it is a correctable condition, i.e., you can lose the weight if you try).
Quite apart from the fact that such legislation interferes with employers’ freedom of contract (is it really so unreasonable for a movie studio to cast a thin person rather than a fat person in certain roles, or for an airline to want a thin flight attendant who can move easily up and down the aisle and allow passengers to pass by rather than a fat flight attendant who will block the aisle?), it’s also not clear why such legislation should focus on fat people, who can often control their condition, rather than other people disadvantaged by mother nature, like short people. (I became fat in 1993, but then lost the weight by eliminating alcohol, butter, and extremely fatty foods from my diet. But short people cannot change the fact that they are short).
After all, most Americans are overweight, so it’s not as if fat people are a tiny minority. And being fat is not as disadvantageous (at least for men) as being short. For example, fat people of both sexes are more likely to get married than short men, and short people are less likely to get promotions than people of average height like me.
A women’s studies professor quoted in the article supports fat discrimination legislation as a way of destigmatizing fatness. (Some colleges now have “fat studies” programs, whose professors are often drawn from existing women’s studies programs). But even if that were truly possible, destigmatizing fatness might do more harm than good to public health. In my wife’s native France, obesity rates are lower than in the U.S., and lifespans are longer (despite all the cheese, foie gras, and red meat they eat). Part of the reason is that they simply eat less (not healthier). Why do they eat less? Partly due to the shame factor. My French-born wife’s (thin) best friend told me, with disapproval, that in France, “it is a shame to be fat.” Shame is not a pleasant emotion, but maybe it’s better to be shamed into losing weight than to be dead from obesity-related conditions, like diabetes, heart diseases, and weight-related cancers. Those obesity-related conditions are a legitimate cause for concern for the insurers and employers who end up paying for them.
Grand Theft Auto: Masterpiece or Abomination?
In less than 36 hours, one of the most anticipated—and most demonized—games in years will hit the shelves. Grand Theft Auto IV, the “true” successor to the groundbreaking Grant Theft Auto III, has been the focus of intense criticism ever since being announced. But while GTA IV will undoubtedly be filled with extreme violence, it may also be a masterpiece of human creativity.
On Friday, IGN reviewed GTA IV, giving it a highly elusive perfect score. Calling it “masterful” and an “American dream,” IGN says GTA IV is the greatest game in nearly a decade. Since the press embargo ended this morning, many other reviewers are reaching similar conclusions.
No real surprises there. What’s surprising, however, is that unlike its somewhat one-dimensional predecessors, GTA IV offers unprecedented character depth along with an “Oscar-caliber” storyline. And it also depicts the ugly downside of crime in the same vein as epic films like Goodfellas and Scarface, retelling the classic story of a struggling immigrant coming to America in search of fortune, haunted by the experiences of a past life.
Naturally, Grand Theft Auto’s release has re-ignited public debate over how games affect kids and whether new laws are needed to protect children from the gratuitous violence found in many video games. GTA has been a favorite target of politicians for the past eight years, and the usual suspects like Jack Thompson and Tim Winter have predictably spoken out against GTA IV. But parental controls are more robust than ever, as Adam has documented, and some have even suggested that kids should be playing Grand Theft Auto. Despite the recent explosion in hyper-realistic violent games, violent crime rates have been dropping across the board. Maybe games like GTA are just another harmless outlet for kids to express violent behavior, much like playing cops and robbers.
As game budgets have swelled and public interest in gaming has expanded, more games than ever transcend the stereotype of gaming as a juvenile pursuit with little artistic merit, reminding us that games can be artistic expressions on par with books, movies, or songs. Critics whose gaming experience consists of having played Pacman in an arcade may belittle gaming as a trivial pastime, but anybody who has played Bioshock or Gears of War or Oblivion knows better. Games can critique the harsh realities of modern society and offer insight into the nature of the human soul in ways that less interactive forms of media cannot. Likewise, games deserve both critical admiration and legal protection.
Of course, GTA IV is no Mona Lisa. But the way things are going, it’s entirely possible that the next timeless masterpiece of artistic expression will be created not with a brush or pen, but with lines of code.
It’s the French, again
I know, I know, the French are targets of easy ridicule here in the USA. But still. Seems French lawmakers passed a bill making it illegal for fashion houses and so forth to show extremely thin models. (See Yahoo! story.) Seems the author of the law, Conservative lawmaker Valery Boyer, had insisted this sort of display encourages anorexia or severe weight loss and should be punishable in court. True, the photo accompanying the Yahoo! story is rather grim - a model with extremely protruding shoulders and ribs. It seems quite unfathomable that a fashion designer would walk that, literally, skeletal look down the runway. But, do we really need a government law to tell us this? A little bit of independent thinking and decision-making would go a long way here. Sure, we are all subject to social pressures - how to dress, how to present ourselves, how much to weigh, etc. But the best advice I can think of is to encourage people (children included) to exercise some independent judgment. Even if we make bad decisions from time to time, we have opportunity to make better decisions in the future. The alternative, as we see in France, is to use government as a tool to treat us all like idiots incapable of making good decisions.
Gay Rights vs. Free Speech Rights?
We previously wrote about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would ban private-sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and how the bill’s requirements regarding “conditions of employment” could restrict free speech rights. The Blade says that Congress will likely take up the ENDA bill in 2008, although a final vote may be delayed until 2009 to avoid a possible veto or filibuster.
U.C.L.A. Law professor Eugene Volokh discusses a free speech controversy over a ruling imposed under New Mexico’s gay-rights law, which has been cited by ENDA supporters as an example of a growing consensus in favor of banning sexual orientation discrimination. A photographer was ordered to pay $6,600 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to take pictures of a civil-commitment ceremony planned by a lesbian couple. That seems hypocritical on the part of the State of New Mexico, since it itself does not recognize gay marriage, or treat civil-commitment ceremonies as being analogous to marriage, yet it punishes wedding photographers who likewise do not treat gay civil-commitment ceremonies as being the same as marriages.
The ruling raises two interesting questions. First, does the ruling violate the free speech or freedom of religion of the photographer, given that taking photographs has long been regarded as expression that is original and copyrightable and that wedding photographs are often very distinctive and involve content-based choices and artistic judgment? Professor Volokh believes that it does violate freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and I agree that it violates both the First Amendment and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act, based on cases like Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995).
Second, is the ruling even based on a reasonable reading of New Mexico’s gay-rights statute, given that that law bans discrimination based on customers’ sexual orientation, not based on the type of ceremony they wish to promote? After all, there is no evidence that the photographer refused to serve gay clients in general, only that she would not take pictures of a civil-commitment ceremony, i.e., promote a particular message. That is not discrimination based on a customer’s sexual orientation anymore than it would be discrimination based on a customer’s religion for a gay photographer to refuse to photograph a religiously-motivated anti-gay demonstration by a reactionary minister like Fred Phelps, or discrimination against blacks or women for a photographer to refuse to videotape a feminist or Nation of Islam event. (Arlington County, Virginia, recognized that fact in rejecting sexual-orientation discrimination charges against a business that refused to duplicate gay-rights videos).
It is common for wedding photographers to turn down certain types of weddings for reasons unrelated to discriminatory animus towards a customer. And a civil-commitment ceremony isn’t legally analogous to a wedding, since it doesn’t create the same binding commitments as a marriage, so photographing weddings but not civil-commitment ceremonies is not itself discrimination. Thus, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission’s ruling against Elaine Huguenin and Elane Photography and in favor of complainant Vanessa Willock should be reversed.
Charlton Heston, R.I.P.
And so film legend and freedom lover Charlton Heston has left us, at age 84. There are already hundreds of obituaries and tributes, with many more surely to follow. For now, I’ll merely quote from the statement of National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre:
America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend…And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom. My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right.
Heston, of course, was known not just for his activism in support of gun rights, but of for civil rights for all Americans (as LaPierre alludes to), having marched in protests with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others. To some, this made him a “paradox,” though I can’t think of anything further from the truth. A belief in personal freedom and the equality of all people before the law are twin foundations of the American idea. Heston understood and believed in both. Here’s to keeping that understanding alive.
“Benito came to me in a dream last night.”
One of the most ignorant and gratingly common complaints about American politics is that of their being bland, uninteresting, and failing to engage large segments of the population.
To anybody who would say such a thing, it’s worth asking, “What do you actually want from politics?” Naturally, people who see political engagement as a sign of civic virtue and who believe that more choices in a democracy (regardless of what those choices are) are always a good thing are likely to respond with stale bromides about…political engagement being a sign of civic virtue and more choices in a democracy being a good thing.
Thus, real-world examples of very interesting politics can act as a better defense of America’s gloriously dull — by world standards — politics. Take your pick: Kenya, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq. Say what you will about any of these countries, you can’t call their politics dull!
However, politics being “interesting” isn’t always bad. There is a bad kind of dullness to American politics that comes from the excessive reverence often accorded to American politicians. (I wonder how many American reporters who must endure covering the stuffy U.S. Senate envy their British counterparts who cover the boisterous House of Commons.)
For that reason, it’s refreshing to see interesting politics of the good kind — that of politics playing out as a spectacle in which the politicians act like buffoons, with the end result that any person with common sense would be embarrassed to show reverence to them. Which brings me to Italy.
Britain’s Observer reports today on a feud between Italian rightist candidate Daniela Santanchè and Alessandra Mussolini, the granddaughter of Il Duce, who has entered politics herself.
Santanchè, 46, a former ally of Berlusconi, is now heading a small party called The Right. In a week in which she descended on a Gypsy camp near Milan, wearing high heels and an elegant trouser suit to argue with residents and slam illegal immigration, Santanchè also found time to warn women not to vote for Berlusconi, ’since he only sees us in the horizontal’. The media mogul had done little to suggest otherwise, claiming the previous week that he would not be sending TV showgirls into parliament this year, ‘because with them we do other things’.
Quick to defend Berlusconi from charges of sexism was Mussolini, 45, whose career path has taken her from an actress who posed topless to pop singer to a European MP who casts herself as the tough-talking housewife of Italian politics, once claiming ‘better a fascist than a faggot’. Calling Berlusconi ‘gallant’, Mussolini spat back that Santanchè was ‘horizontal, politically’, after clawing her way into politics thanks to the backing of Gianfranco Fini, who has renounced his neo-Fascist roots and joined the Berlusconi ticket.
The response was minutes away. ‘I believe Alessandra’s grandfather Benito is turning in his grave at the sight of her working as an assistant to (Fini), who said Fascism was the absolute evil,’ said Santanchè. ‘Berlusconi on the other hand would probably like to wear Mussolini’s boots; after all, he wears lifts in his shoes already,’ she added caustically.
‘Benito came to me in a dream last night,’ replied Alessandra, as the row dominated the news, ‘and he told me exactly what he thinks of Santanchè.’
Of course, I’m glad these people have no chance of ever having political power in the United States, but at least their fight is being waged with words and not violence. Still, even with the deserved ridicule such behavior would earn politicians here, I’ll take the kind of politics which most people can easily ignore any day. When political contests are dull, your property, freedom, or even very life don’t depend on the outcome.
May those who complain about America’s dull politics live in interesting times. (Thanks to Margaret Griffis for the Observer link.)
Playing God, 1973-style
In today’s New York Times, a feature story profiles a project to create a national economic planning supercomputer by the socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile in the early 1970s. “Cybersyn,” as the project was known, consisted largely of “a clunky mainframe computer and a network of telex machines.”
A new exhibit in Chile’s presidential palace features a replica of a control chair (pictured right) that was part of the abortive project. The device may seem quaint today, but its being technologically dated makes it no less creepy. Its look is fittingly reminiscent of the furnishings in petty-tyrant Number 2’s control room in “The Prisoner.” And it would look equally at home in Woody Allen’s totalitarian dystopian film Sleeper (its pornographic-sounding name is even reminiscent of the “Orgasmatron” device featured in the film), which was released in 1973, the year Allende was deposed in a military coup.
Now 1973 may seem like ancient history today, but by then, Ludwig von Mises had already clearly shown why economic calculation is impossible without prices operating in a market system, and Friedrich Hayek had made the compelling case of why no single entity could ever gather sufficient knowledge to plan a national economy. Yet the self-appointed planners keep on trying, no matter how many times they fail — and they will always fail. Would that all such schemes end up as museum pieces! (Thanks to John LaBeaume for the Times link.)
Lawmakers: Rounders on the Hill
The US government is no stranger to ridiculousness. As Eli pointed out in his recent study on dumb product bans, the logic (I use the word loosely here) employed by legislators to decide what to regulate can often perplex regular joes. Just as confusing as what they regulate, are the ways they choose to regulate certain things. Take, for example, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). Not only was this law passed in a roundabout way (attached to the must pass Safe Port Act the night before congress adjourned for mid-session elections) but it doesn’t regulate gambling at all. As Eli and I note in our op-ed published in the American Spectator UIGEA is, primarily, a banking regulation.
…the Act imposes an obligation on banking institutions to block transactions “related” to illegal online gambling…Rather than trying to force all online gambling sites out of business directly or penalize people who play a few hands of poker online, the law — a brainchild of recently unseated Iowa Republican Jim Leach — simply threatens to cut off the money that makes gambling possible.
In her March 4th article in the Washington Post, Cindy Skrzycki claimed that the act was unenforceable due to its ambiguous language:
Republican Sens. John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) asked regulators to come up with a list of restricted transactions.
Otherwise, they predicted, “Risk-averse financial institutions will simply choose to block every transaction” that could resemble gambling, “whether legal or not.”
But even if it were enforceable, I find it more offensive that regulators even presumed that they have a right to make these demands of financial institutions at all.
The Act obligates banks to act as the government’s secret police, presuming (in similar fashion to the know-your-customer mandates stemming from the Bank Secrecy Act) that all transactions are “dirty” until proven clean. If there is reason for the government to suspect that someone has committed a crime, then the government should start an investigation and the government should find the proof to prosecute that one person. The UIGEA makes everyone transferring funds guilty and puts the burden of proving innocence onto financial institutions.
In this scenario the only winner is the US government, which can continue restricting gambling to the venues it can tax, without having to spend money on enforcement, or extend energy in figuring out if enforcement is even possible in reality.
Maybe they thought nobody would notice their making banks the proxy enforcers of a gambling ban the public would never tolerate; maybe they thought we’d be fooled if they pushed regulation through in the dead of night.
I’m calling their bluff and calling for a repeal of a law that is just plain bad.
More than Rotten Teeth in the UK
picture via freedomandshit.org
I’ve been following the discussion on bad British teeth between Eli and Fran and while it may be that fluoridation in public water offers some protection for teeth, I think it is Britain’s culture-wide belief that “the public good” outweighs individual rights which has caused the rotting of their teeth (among other things).
In fact, recent studies comparing countries with fluoridated water versus countries without, found that the positive effects of fluoride were much less significant than we previously thought.
“In lifetime residents of fluoridated areas 47% had evidence of erosion; in 21% erosion had progressed to the dentine or pulp. The corresponding figures in non-fluoridated areas were 43% and 21% respectively… Levels in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas were similar. “
Additionally, any positive result from drinking fluoridated water is nullified (especially in the USA) by the increasing reliance on bottled water.
I have to agree with Eli, if only on the point that Brits’ rotten teeth spring from a deeper cause than drinking water. However, I disagree that the fundamental problem is their unwillingness to spend money on public services. While it may be true that Brits spend less than other countries on dental hygiene, the real problem is the enslavement of the profession–namely a disregard for individual rights.
In an article last January, Bloomberg reported that, while many in the UK were doing without regular dental care, many were using private care or, alternately, having work done over seas where they waits are shorter and costs minimal.
And though a startlingly 36 percent of respondents to the poll say they’ve gone more than 2 years without seeing a dentist, the problem isn’t lack of money–it’s lack of dentists. 1 in 10 dentists “dropped out” of the NHS system since April ‘06 when the government changed the contract with doctors. But there is a bright spot on the horizon; something that makes me hope the stereotype of bad british teeth will not apply for much longer. This wonderful development is the invasion of capitalism into the UK dental market. According to the same Bloomberg article:
The U.K.’s private dental market grew 63 percent to 3 billion pounds ($5.9 billion) from 2002 to 2006, overtaking the 2.4 billion pounds budgeted by the government.
Doctors, fed up with being treated like slaves to the state, are refusing to treat NHS patients. You can make the argument that increases in government spending would convince dentists to treat NHS patients, but the root of the problem I continue treating NHS patients While you may argue that increases in government spending on dental care would entice dentists to continue treating NHS patients, I think the root of the problem is the prevention of letting dentists work for profit. The government in the UK treats doctors as if, by virtue of their profession, they are duty bound to sacrifice their lives for the good of the people and implicitly believes that they ought to should treat patients regardless of personal gain or personal pain. The result is shoddy work, long waits, and eventual existing of the system in favor of something more profitable.
Hopefully, with private care on the rise, the British will have something to smile about in the future.
Jimmy Knows Why We Need Guns
James Stewart that is, in the movie Shenandoah.
While considering the various angles of the DC gun ban debate, I happened to see the film (after many years of hearing what a great it is) Shenandoah; boy was I glad when those credits rolled. This touching story of a quiet Virginia farmer during the civil war and his quest to hold onto his land, his family, and the right to live his life as he saw fit was a perfect concretization of the concept of a right to bear arms. It gets to the heart of why that particular right is so important.
In the DC debate, there has been a lot of talk about the”public good” and whether or not a ban on gun ownership is better or worse for public safety, whether it lowers crime rates or simply makes it difficult for honest people to own guns. These arguments, though they are interesting points of discussion, miss I think the fundamental reason for our right to bear arms. That is, we have the right to self defense; the right to protect and defend our other rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) against any unlawful aggressor–even if that aggressor happens to be the United States government.
Living, as we do, in a time when there is no living survivor of a war on our own soil, it is difficult for most of us to imagine ever having the need to physically defend ourselves against a foreign army (let alone our government). That is one reason to watch Shenandoah, beside the fact that it is a brilliantly entertaining movie.
Below are two of my favorite quotes from the movie. Nobody puts it quite like Jimmy Stewart when his character, Charlie Anderson is confronted by a Lieutenant of the confederate army (this particular scene reminds of a somewhat similar occurrence in D.C. lately) :
Charlie Anderson: Can you give me one good reason why I should let my sons march down that road like a bunch of damn fools?
Lt. Johnson: Virginia needs all her sons, Mr. Anderson.
Charlie Anderson: They don’t belong to the state they belong to ME! When they were babies I never saw the state comin’ around here with a spare tit!…Lt. Johnson: When are you going to take this war seriously, Anderson?
Charlie Anderson: Now let me tell you something, Johnson, before you get on my wrong side. My corn I take seriously, because it’s mine. And my potatoes and tomatoes and my fence I take note of because they’re mine. But this war is not mine and I don’t take note of it.
Movies Too Long, Life Too Short
Anthony Minghella, a film director adored by critics and liked by audiences, has died at 54. Minghella (link goes to his IMDb page), who directed The English Patient, The Talented Mister Ripley, and Cold Mountain made movies that always seemed serious. He got good performances out of his actors and established an arresting visual style. My main problem with him was simple: like a lot of directors more popular with critics than audiences, his movies were too long. Even the rather slight Mr. Ripley came in at nearly three hours. I’m sorry to see him pass. He had talent and probably would have improved with age. But all of his movies could have used just a bit more editing.
-
About Us
OpenMarket.org is the staff blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. We believe that people improve their lives not through government regulation, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace. -
Search
-
Categories
Agriculture
Bureaucrash
CEI in the City
Culture
Economic Liberty
Energy
Environment
Global Warming
Healthcare Reform
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International
Legal
Mobility
Nanny State
Nano & Biotech
Odds & Ends
Personal Liberty
Politics as Usual
Precaution & Risk
Privacy
Sanctimony
Tech & Telecom
Trade
-
RSS Center
