Quick thought on Gov't Bailouts and FDR

In the present state of opinion there is some danger that our impatience for quick results may lead us to choose instruments which, though perhaps more efficient for achieving the particular ends, are not compatible with the preservation of a free society. The increasing tendency to rely on extreme administrative measures where a modification of the general rules of law might, perhaps more slowly, achieve the same object, and to resort to direct state controls or to the creation of monopolistic institutions where judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts is still a powerful legacy of the FDR period which is likely to influence policy for a long time to come.

So you know: I'm an American first and a Conservative second

Lost Poster from the China Olympics

Does Your State Allow You to Revolt?

Well, the New Hampshire Constitution does mention a right of revolution:

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

No wonder the state motto is "Live Free or Die."

Kids: Are You Popular?

I agree that parking in cars with boys isn’t what determines a girl’s popularity. It’s what she does in the backseat that makes her prom queen. Hey-ooo!

Can't complain about some good mellons

I Love this Palin kid!

Problems with people who say they are a Communist and an Anarchist

Sure, there are people who assume the label of "communist" who claim to be anarchistic, and these people are different from the Stalins and Castros of the world. However, it is a mistake to take such people seriously on matters of political organization, since their view of a perfect society happens to be an impossible utopia, based upon premises far outside of actual experience.

The truth is that communism cannot exist without force because it depends so heavily upon squelching individual human ambition and making it subservient to the community. The momement an individual in a communist society attempts to take property for himself, or trade with others for his own profit, there must be a collective force available to stop his activities. That neccessity leads to a strong government, which eliminates any potential for an anarchistic communism. Even softer forms of communism must eventually evolve into their totalitarian bretheren. Accordingly, I'd prefer to see the whole lot discredited, regardless of what luminaries might be contained within their numbers.

Damnit I dropped something. Can you guys help me find it?

Classic!

Gay marriage and Ex Post Facto Clause:

I sometimes get from students this questions about the Massachusetts gay marriage case: If Massachusetts passes a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, and retroactively canceling all marriages created under the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, would that violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? The answer is "no." Though the Ex Post Facto Clause restricts state as well as federal decisions -- it's one of the few federal constitutional rights that bound the states even before the Civil War Amendments -- it has consistently been interpreted as barring only retroactive criminal laws. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798). Justice Thomas suggested in his concurrence in Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) that Calder might be mistaken, but it's a pretty firmly entrenched precedent, and I doubt that courts will reverse it.

What about the Contracts Clause, which bars states from impairing the obligation of contracts? Say that the Massachusetts voters cancel existing gay marriages, and don't substitute civil unions for them, thus essentially abrogating the existing marriage contracts. Would this violate the Contracts Clause? I suspect the answer is still "no"; the Contracts Clause has generally not been seen as applying to marriage contracts, which, I take it, is why states have been allowed to relax their divorce laws. See, e.g., Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 480 (1863); White v. White, 4 How.Pr. 102 (N.Y. Sup. 1849). (If a state used to forbid divorces, or allow them only in rare circumstances, it was essentially treating the marriage contract as very strongly binding; the enactment of a permissive marriage law would thus diminish the legal force of the marriage contract.) But if anyone has more specific legal authority for me on this, I'd love to see it and cite it.

Thoughts on Americans' Expectations for Economic Success

In America we have some expectations when it comes to economic status. Expectations may be good, and they may be bad. Either way we need to remember that they are expectations and not reality. In fact success in America is measured by certain expectations. If a person meets or exceeds those expectations we have celebrations and fan fare. And, when those expectations are not met, then a person’s fiscal failings are kept in the shadows, something that we would rather not talk about. Fiscal failings are considered a source of embarrassment for the man down on his luck. But, if this information is kept hidden and not spoken about, then no one really knows if the expectations are even reasonable.

In America people have accepted that they should be better off in every proceeding year from the last. A small cost of living raise serves as an illusion to this expectation, while it shows a rising wage, it doesn’t always even match inflation. When a company is doing well they will often compensate the employees, but these compensations aren’t always justified in their distributions. Truth be told, fiscal failings behind common expectations are the rule rather than the exception. Americans have discovered how to continue the illusion in the face of this failure to meet expectations. Americans have taken to borrowing money in order to appear that they have exceeded expectations.

American expectations plaque the American economy in many ways.

The entire mortgage crisis that has recently burst the housing market bubble was caused by people meaning to appear to meet the expectations of the American dream. People bought into the idea that things were going to be better further down the road. They deluded themselves into believing that five years down the road they would be able to pay the mortgage when the payment jumped in their sub-prime loan.

Let me take the example of some people I know, who confided recently that they will be moving out of their house. Five years ago when they bought the house they were able to do so by borrowing the money at a low interest rate. Even with that low interest rate they still had to make a $3000 per month mortgage payment. I don’t really know what they were thinking when they were told that in five years the payment would jump to $6000 per month. They were able to make the $3000 per month payments by having several families live in the same house and pool their resources. In addition one of the women in the house opened a day care in the house to take care of the children a raise a bit of extra cash. I could imagine that they might have been thinking that they could increase the number of children that they took in to significantly defray the cost when the payment jumped. They could have been thinking that they would all be making double their wages in five years and hence have the additional money needed when the payment jumped. Maybe they were thinking that they could double the number of occupants in the house over the next five years so that they could make the payment when it doubled. I don’t know what they were thinking, but whatever it was they were not able to make it happen; so they will be moving out of their house shortly.

The whole story above was forced into play by unreasonable expectations. The people moved into that house because they had expectations that they should be living in this house that was beyond their means. But, in America we have expectations that anyone should be able to “make it” if they work hard. They people living in this house accepted those expectations and proceeded the best way they knew. They set up an illegal day care and tried to make some extra cash. They work extra long hours putting in as many as they could, leaving in the morning before sunrise and getting home long after sunset. The main obstacle was not motivation or ingenuity. Their main obstacle was the expectation.

Expecting success often delivers success. A person is often motivated to work hard just believing that success will find a way. Many people, myself included, have operated under this premise. The ugly truth, however, is that many people also fail to meet these expectations following these same principles. Success or failure is not conditioned on how much work is put into an endeavor. Success or failure happens for many unforeseen reasons. And, because the reasons are unforeseen each individual that succeeds succeeds mainly because of luck. And, the entire concept of success is nestled in the expectations for the endeavor itself.

So, American entrepreneurial spirit is based on expectations. Entrepreneurs expect to invest time, energy and resources into a risky venture and succeed in producing something new and novel. This type of expectation is good for America and infects the American society with the can-do rags-to-riches mentality. But, if everyone in the country comes to expect that they to can become wealthy by selling shlock that no one wants or needs to the next guy, then that entrepreneurial spirit has changed from a net positive to a net negative for American society as a whole. And, the only real thing that has changed in this equation is the expectation. People once believed that innovation was a key to make a new product worthwhile has been changed into the belief that slick marketing can sell any old crap to anyone and make the seller wealthy. People won’t by crap was once the counter to this argument. But the real life counter example to that argument is how many people bought Windows computers and operating systems instead of much better alternatives such as Unix. The legacy lives on unfortunately. Marketing outmaneuvers substance.

Marketing after all is all about expectations. Marketing starts out by telling you what you should expect, then it claims to fill that expectation with the perfect product. Since America is the capital of the capitalist world we shouldn’t expect anything different than the marketing of many unfulfilled expectations and products that can’t fill them.

Since the Great Depression and FDR calling for Americans to expect a chicken in every pot our expectations have continued to grow with American marketing machine. Chickens in our pots, Cars in our garages, houses on our golf courses and yachts on our rivers and lakes we finally expect that we should control the world itself. Obviously we can always create expectations that are higher than we can realistically achieve and we most likely will continue to do so. And, when we do so how will we be able to know which expectations are reasonable and which ones are not?

I love Yoga

Housing Market is Good for Buyers at least

Technology watch:

Here's what I want, one day. Something like an iPod, where I can store a ton of audio files and, say, play it on "random," with the following features:

• I get to put files into categories and randomize within categories only, i.e., "randomize within Classical," or "randomize between Classical and Rock 50-50, and randomize within each category."



• I get to rate audio files, and the rating affects the probability that a piece gets played in the future, i.e. a "1" gets chosen rarely while a "5" gets chosen more often.

Does that exist, and if not, is someone working on this?

Who should we take in?

I doubt the legal/illegal immigration debate will be a hot topic in the upcoming administration or Congress but I thought I might look at the standards that should be applied to the legal entrants. What shall they be?

I hear two major complaints about the current groups of immigrants, legal and illegal combined:

1. Too many are unskilled.
2. Too many don't speak English.

Whether we agree with these complaints, a politically feasible proposal must in some way address them. I propose a three-tier system, with the following criteria:

1. One group of immigrants would buy their way in. A certain number of slots would be auctioned off.

Note that this group of emigrants is likely already skilled and wealthy to some degree. While they may not speak English, linguistic assimilation would not appear to be a problem. Furthermore the funds received could go to bear the general costs of immigration. The money could be awarded to state or city governments in proportion to the number of migrants who live there.

2. One group of immigrants would be chosen on the basis of work skills.

We already give favorable treatment to nurses, and Canada uses skills as a criterion for immigrants, with success. Note that this class of immigrants is unlikely to create major problems.

Before proceeding, I would like to challenge the view that all emigrants should be highly skilled. In part we gain by trading with people who are not like us. We wish to have maids, gardeners, and manual laborers. Furthermore America has a special interest in the well-being of its neighbor Mexico. The problems of Mexico will be our problems, increasingly. So for the third category I propose the following:

3. Test the unskilled for IQ and perseverance. Allocate a larger number of legal spots to Mexico and other poorer nations, with the goal of taking in unskilled laborers. Give special priority to Mexico. That being said, we should allocate these spots rigorously based on the following criteria:

a. Some measure approximating IQ
b. English language proficiency

In other words, give them all something like an SAT test, in English, and take in the winners. This will select for intelligence, drive to succeed, ability to persevere in study, and willingness to learn English. It should improve dramatically the quality of our unskilled immigrants. It should make the immigration of unskilled labor much more politically acceptable. It will give Mexicans an incentive to learn English.

Of course we can argue about the relative magnitudes of the three categories. For humanitarian reasons, I would prefer that the third category be especially large. But practical politics may not leave us many degrees of freedom. If we need to jiggle the weight of the categories to increase the total number of immigrants, so be it. Here is a general recipe for more legal immigration, more gains from trade, and more human freedom, while simultaneously making immigration more politically acceptable to the American public. I'm not holding my breath, but I prefer this solution to the other proposals I have seen.

Quote of the Day

From the St. Louis Today website an article titled, "A plan to survive the Obama years" by Z. Dwight Billingsly gives a wonderful quote about why not every black person should or will be proud of what happened in Nov. 2008:

Another side effect has been white people contacting me to say that I should be proud to see a black man become president. Could there be a comment that is more condescending, more insulting, than that? If I believed that in America a black man could not be president, then I would be proud to see any black man elected president. But because I always have believed that nothing in America prevents a black man from becoming president or anything else he wants to be, I can be embarrassed, not proud, to see someone as unqualified and inexperienced as Obama become president.

Times Have Changed:

Justice Thurgood Marshall, dissenting in United States v. Roth (1972):

"In my view, every citizen who applied for a government job is entitled to it unless the government can establish some reason for deny in the employment."

It's hard to imagine a Justice writing this today. Reading USSC opinions from the early 1970s (the Court's liberal heyday) is always interesting, because the underlying assumptions, methodologies, etc., have changed so much.

Simpsons Resource

I just found an incredible resource for fans of The Simpsons. Check out the episode guide for one of my favorite episodes, "Like Father, Like Clown" (in which Krusty is reunited with his estranged rabbi father). The detail is incredible (though a few of the Yiddish translations are questionable). Also incredible is the site's "freeze frame fun" feature, which points out the exacting detail in The Simpsons' animation which most viewers miss.

Classic blond vs brunette in the battle of the bimbos

The Dangers of LSD!!!!

Oh, God! Old people have to figure out the analog conversion

Grandma, get your lazy ass off the coach and fix the TV!

A little bit of embarrassment seems to be in order

I just watched a documentary about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were convicted in the 1950s of spying for the Soviets, and executed for it. The documentary was directed by their granddaughter, Ivy Meeropol. Now I had read an article about this film in the Los Angles Times and the second paragraph struck me below:

But what also drove [Ivy] was the fact that "I was tired of the simplistic version of this story, what history remembers, the way everyone thinks they stole the secret of the atomic bomb. I knew this wasn't true, I knew they were more than that, and I wanted to bring their story to people who don't know it or have closed their minds to it. And I needed to know what was worth standing up for, what they were willing to die for."

What this involved was re-creating the world of left-wing activists from which the Rosenbergs emerged, entering it through interviews with friends like Osheroff who are still alive and remember a time of hunger and privation, when, as one says, "you had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary." People, Ivy says, who were "idealists with good intentions who sincerely believed the Soviet Union was a better way. It's painful that people continue to dismiss that, and I wanted to reclaim it for them."

Now I'm sure that some, perhaps many, American Communists, including those who continued supporting the Soviet Union into the 1950s -- past the Ukrainian famine, past the purges, past the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, past the enslavement of Eastern Europe -- were misguided "idealists with good intentions." True, to remain "misguided realists," they had to have willfully blinded themselves to the reality of what the Soviets were doing. But human beings have a remarkable capacity to do that sort of thing.

Still, the fact remains that either these "left-wing activists" were evil (i.e., not really misguided idealists, but people who fully supported slaughter and tyranny in the name of Communism) or fools: People who failed to realize that Communism would create more hunger and privation, as well as suppressing freedom and killing people. And at the same time, history shows that many of those who didn't "feel radical change was necessary" (a category that of course includes many New Dealers, conservatives, moderates, and many others) -- who were supposedly "dead from the neck up" -- were smarter, wiser, and more humane.

I don't think I'm asking for much here -- just a bit of embarrassment. "Our friends were dupes of the Soviets, and it turns out many of their opponents were actually smarter and more morally well-grounded than they were, but we should remember that they were just misguided idealists with good intentions" might work. I'm not sure whether it will work for everyone, but it's at least plausible. "You had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary," said when many of the "dead from the neck up" have now been obviously vindicated by history and those who supported pro-Soviet "radical change" have been proven to be fools or worse, is not a strong argument.

Unless, of course, after all that has been discovered about the awful history of the 20th century, you still think that your pro-Soviet buddies were actually right. In which case, I wish you had spent 1937 in the "better way" of the Soviet Union, rather than in the "hunger and privation" of the United States. Or that part of 1937 before you really did become "dead from the neck up."

Dinner parties for conservatives

Say you're a conservative, and you're planning a dinner party of twenty people. Here is the catch: you are not restricted by who is alive, or by what language anyone speaks. Here is the top ten from rightwingnews.com:

1) Jesus
2) Ronald Reagan
3) Winston Churchill
4) Abraham Lincoln
5) Thomas Jefferson
6) Ben Franklin
7) Mark Twain
8) Ayn Rand
8) George Patton
8) Leonardo Da Vinci

I'll opt for Ron Paul, George Washington, Socrates, Plato, Jesus, Joe Montana, Thomas Jefferson, F.A. Hayek, George III, and one of the Aztecs who fought Cortes. Of course, if I were still single, the list might be different altogether, and no, neither Ayn Rand nor Ann Coulter would be in the running.

Conundrum for the day

Here is a philosophical problem I am working on that goes well with my post on immortality. Your comments are always welcome:

In my lifetime as a driver, I stand some (fairly low) chance of killing an innocent pedestrian. Few people would argue that I should be prohibited from driving. Assume, however, that science prolongs (fit) human life forever, at least unless you are struck down by a car. My chance of killing an innocent pedestrian then would approach certainty, given that I plan to continue driving throughout an eternal life. In fact I could be expected to kill very many pedestrians. Should I then be prohibited from driving? When we make a prohibition decision, should we measure the risk of a single act of driving, or the risk of driving throughout a lifetime? Measuring the bundled risk appears to imply absurd consequences, such as banning driving for people with sufficiently long lives.

Alternatively, measuring the risk of only the single act is vulnerable to counterexamples. Imagine an involuntary game of Russian roulette with very many chambers in the gun, played very many times against me. The chance of my death from any single firing is very small, but surely we would prohibit such a game, looking at the high overall risk of the bundle. In this case we consider the bundled risk, but does this mean that we should stop immortals from driving cars?

Civil Rights Cases

I'm teaching the Civil Rights Cases (1883) tomorrow, which invalidated the Civil Right Act of 1875's prohibition on discrimination by inns, public conveyances, and places of public amusement, as beyond Congress's power under the 13th and 14th Amendments. In debates over Lochner v. New York and constitutional protection of economic liberty more generally, liberal scholars will sometimes refer to the Civil Rights Cases as an example of the evils of constitutional protection for economic liberty, arguing that the Court upheld economic liberty at the expense of civil rights. As I read the Cases, however, the majority's opinion is solely based on federalism and has nothing to do with economic liberty or property rights. Indeed, the majority takes pains to note that all states require inns and common carriers to serve all comers, and that the plaintiffs in the cases involving inns and common carriers (but perhaps not the case involving a theater) had remedies under state law. Just another example of how sloppy the debate over Lochner has been.

Immortals and Risk-aversion

Would immortals-by-lifespan who were not invulnerable be very, or infinitely, risk averse? Would they be very unambitious and inactive, since there would always be time for stuff later?

I'm not going to get into the genuine intellectual issues at stake, just going to enjoy the chance to survey some Sci Fi, fantasy, and related genres of fiction.

Some say that in "contemporary vampire fiction" vampires are extremely risk-averse. I suppose that this refers to the Anne Rice novels, none of which I've read. But it does invite an obvious question about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which was otherwise generally very good about imagining a world that made sense given its initial premises. Why would any vampire hang out in Sunnydale? The Master was bound into the Hellmouth, and some of his servants were bound to him. Occasionally there was a vampire who wanted the glory of killing a Slayer. But then there were the countless, often nameless, vampires who just inhabited the town and treated it as their feeding ground-- until they got staked. The Hellmouth might have attracted demons, made it more likely that new vampires would be created, and generated generic magical weirdness. But wouldn't an even-remotely-rational vampire, even one who had been created in Sunnydale, move out of town immediately upon realizing that he or she was much more likely to get destroyed there than any other place in the world? Even the glory-hounds must have thought that the glory of killing a Slayer was inordinately valuable, given that they should have wanted to avoid any risk at all of getting slain. Instead, they continued to congregate in the least rational place for them to do so.

Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long was not highly risk-averse-- but he did not know that he was going to turn out to be immortal, and by the time he knew, his habits of mind, his aversion to boredom, had been very well-set. Many of his fellow Howards did become very conservative and risk-averse, especially those who were born after the advent of rejuvenation and who therefore knew all along that they were functionally immortal.

The characters in Poul Anderson's Boat of a Million Years have interestingly varied reactions-- some but not others become extremely conservative for parts of their lifespan.

Characters in the Highlander universe of course face a somewhat different incentive structure. They are immortal-- but know that only one of them will be truly immortal, the last one to survive the last swordfight. That creates an incentive to engage in swordfights along the way, so as to remain in practice. [NB: Yes, there are also intermittent claims about each immortal 'gaining the power' of each other one he or she kills in combat-- but there's not a lot of consistency about just what that means, and whether that 'power' makes one more likely to win the next fight.] Accordingly, we again see variation in strategies adopted, from the strategy of spending centuries at a time on holy ground (off limits for swordfights), in order to protect one's immortal life, to the strategy of fighting all the time in order to hone skills and increase the chances of being the last survivor.

Isaac Asimov's Spacers, on the other hand, almost all become extremely risk-averse, even though they only have lengthened lifespans rather than infinite ones.

For those wondering about Tolkien's elves: they may well be a special case, as there are mixed suggestions about what happens when one is bodily slain, and some suggestions that they cannot be permanently bodily destroyed. Tolkien's elves can, of course, die of wounds or poison. They can also lose the will to live. But in either case they travel to the Halls of Mandos and reside there, apparently incarnate. It's left unclear whether doing so differs in any clear sense from simply travelling over the sea to Valinor; the long-term existence of an elf who is shot with an arrow may not be that different from the long-term existence of one who just sails away. Moreover, the texts that suggest life with Mandos is not embodied also suggest that it is possible to become re-embodied-- in a substantially identical body with the same name, spirit and memories. Both Finrod and Glorfindel apparently did so. Whether one re-embodies in Valinor or in Middle Earth, Elvish 'death' seems to be a lower-stakes affair than most other variants of the same.

Often even when some of the long-lifers/ immortals grow risk-averse, the narrative centers around the one(s) who doesn't/don't, and implicitly or explicitly condemns extreme risk-aversion. The wisdom gained over long life teaches that life has to be lived in order to be worth living... or something like that. But that might well tell us more about the demands of narrative than about what immortals would actually be like-- the risk-averse just aren't the most interesting people to tell most kinds of stories about...

Strategy for the Libertarian Party

2010 is coming quickly and of course is a Senate election year. As in past election years, there will likely be a few very close Senate races in which the vote totals of the Libertarian candidate will threaten to be greater than the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Republican strategists will call on the Libertarians to drop out and endorse the Republican. Most of the Libertarian candidates will refuse. One or more elections will be thrown to the Democrats, and mutual recriminations between Republicans and Libertarians will commence, with the Republicans accusing the Libertarians of aiding the more statist Democrats, and the Libertarians responding that Republicans have not earned libertarian support.

This scenario seems to occur every two years. I have a solution. What if the Republicans actually offered something tangible for Libertarian support, and the Libertarians accepted it? And what if that something tangible was influence over a discrete number of appointments to the federal appellate bench? Libertarians can't expect the Republicans to nominate hard-core Libertarian activists, but they can, in return for support in close races, ask the Republicans to nominate libertarian-minded Republicans: Alex Kozinski and Buzz Arnold rather than John Noonan and Robert Bork; Jim Ely (of Vanderbilt) rather than Lino Graglia (of Texas); Janice Brown rather than Charles Pickering.

I see a win-win situation here. The Republicans ensure that Libertarian votes don't cost them Senate elections; Libertarians actually accomplish something for liberty by boosting the prospects of libertarian-minded Republicans, something they don't achieve by either throwing close races to Democrats or dropping out of races without compensation. And since the parties are repeat players, there will be a strong incentive for the Republicans not to cheat on whatever deal is reached (secretly, one would assume).

Our Wealth

We're undergoing another one of those painful "wealth contractions" - similar to what we saw in 2001 when the last asset bubble burst.

I don't care what anyone says, dating service videos are hysterical

Elderly Island: How to Deal with the Elderly

This is from Dwight's blog "Schrute Space" on the Office website. My wife says it reminds her of my thinking:

"A month ago, my lazy sloth of a Great Uncle, Stoffel, invaded my home. Schrutes are obligated to provide lodging for family members, so long as they’re willing to hunt, slaughter, and/or cure meat in exchange for their room and board. Stoffel refuses to do any work of any kind. He just sits around on our wolverine-skinned couch, drinking tea, reading books, and shivering. The man is truly a 104 year-old menace to society and an example of what happens when a Rumspringa lasts from the Roaring Twenties through the Swinging Sixties.

Stoffel’s continued hedonistic lifestyle is a symptom of a pandemic sweeping the globe: with the spread of modern medicine, the elderly continue to live longer and longer, surviving despite their deteriorating bodies and minds, and burdening society with their “needs” (Note: insulin is a privilege not a right). A person should only exist as long as he proves beneficial to his community. Schrute children adhere to this rule by the age of 6 or else they’re permanently reassigned to a weaker, more tolerant family. So why can’t old people abide?

Unfortunately, humanity seems to lack the backbone to demand that the elderly continue to contribute until they terminate. Instead we both indulge their laziness and demean them, locking them away in retirement homes while they slowly rot in a medicated stupor. The thought seems to be, the elderly, like most minority groups, enjoy being grouped together in a designated living area. But what if we stripped them of their pills and deprived them of their Rascal scooters, perhaps the elderly would stand up and face death like a man: head on, in a battle royal. Win or lose, they’d be more alive than they are now, even if the exertion caused them to cease living.

I’m proposing we take all the seemingly washed-up old geezers sucking at society’s teat like wrinkled old leaches and put them on some remote island. There, they would compete for survival in a format not un-like the popular television program Survivor, only there would be no challenge rewards, medical assistance, or immunity. Just old men and women working together to battle time and Mother Nature, reliving their glory days in some treacherous tropical paradise.

Some would surely die, many immediately, but at least they would die with dignity. Plus there would be those that rise to the occasion—that fight and triumph against the odds. They would of course be welcomed back to our youthful society as conquering heroes, free to live out their days however they see fit. I only pray that if my body ever shows any signs of corrosion, that I’m given such an opportunity. There’s no way I’m going out like old Stoffel, annoying my relatives as I slowly expire. Better to die living my life with honor: sabotaging my opponents, crushing my competition, and surviving no matter what the costs."

Learn to become a master of FOIA-Filing in 4 Easy Steps!

You ever wondered how you could acquire government documents that were not already made public? Well, here is your answer in video form. A step-by-process on filing a Freedom of Information Act Request.

Are you going to spend for the Axis or save for the taxes?

Mentally Ill...Not me!

Additional Thoughts on Automakers

I discussed yesterday my plan for assisting the Detroit automakers. I realize that there is already a system in place to do just that --- it's called Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization, and it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. The company's contacts will be voided and the trustee will assess the company assets, liabilities, and production capabilities and draft a plan for the company to continue operating and return to profitability. The greedy United Auto Workers (UAW) hates that idea because returning to profitability requires reining in the over-rich compensation for their members that they have extorted from the automakers (and yes it was extorted if one wants to go back to the UAW strikes that costs the big 3 millions a day in lost profits).

In my opinion giving a chunk of tax revenue to the automakers only perpetuates the problem of the greedy UAW, who have bled all of the profit out of the industry, and left the companies drowning in debt. It is reasonable and fair to require UAW members to work for wages comparable to what Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes employees in the United States earn. Bankruptcy is not "unthinkable", as characterized by Rick Wagonner with his hand out reaching for the public treasury, it is the solution to the problem that will restore the US auto industry.

If Pelosi and Reid give the UAW a chunk of taxpayer revenue, it will remind people why they used to vote Republican.

Old Picture from my Childhood

The teacher said to think of some unique science experiment.

My proposal to rescue U.S. automakers

Make better cars.

I know the problem is a bit more complicated than that. As I understand it, GM's problems are not making cars, but making cars at a price low enough so people are willing to pay, but high enough to cover their expenses (much of which are in the form of pensions).

If we have to have a bailout so to speak why not do it by buying out the automakers' pension plans in exchange for stock? If they still can't compete, sell the stock to Toyota as part of a takeover; if they can now compete, sell the stock to investors to recoup the money.

It's still a bit too socialist for me, but better than throwing money down a rathole. This way the problem might actually be solved.

Implications of multiple Government Market Interference Attempts

Political science has taught me several things about government decisionmaking. Most importantly in relation to the current market situation is the fact that we are clearly on a slippery slope toward massive and ill-advised government interference. Unlike many slippery slopes this one is not likely to take a long time.

Almost every day we hear: “We have already done this; why should we not do that?” Spencer called this is a “blank form of an inquiry.” Just fill in the relevant blanks for “this” and “that” and you get an argument of sorts.

One of the most important of these mechanisms is the “cost-lowering” slippery slope. Once the $700 billion bailout fund for the Treasury was created it became cheaper for particular interests to lobby for their share of the pot. (After all, the pot is already there.) What was little noticed by the general public in the discussion of that legislation was that the Treasury was permitted to do much more than buy troubled assets with the $700 billion.

More exactly, troubled assets were defined not only as mortgages or securities based on mortgages but any other financial instrument necessary to promote financial market stability. Buying preferred stock in exchange for capital infusion in any company is permitted. In fact, the original plan of buying mortgage-backed securities has been abandoned! Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson now sees financial stability needs in the sectors that provide auto loans, student loans and credit cards. Of course, the large industrial lenders like GE Capital and GMAC (financing part of General Motors) will probably be included when they reclassify themselves as banks or bank-holding companies.The next Administration has sent clear signals that financial stability requires saving declining manufacturing like the auto industry.

Cost-lowering slopes can be supplemented by “attitude-altering” slopes. This is what Herbert Spencer referred to as “the blank form of an inquiry.” We have heard for weeks now that if Wall Street can be bailed out, then why not Main Street? The implication is, of course, that the first idea was a good one. Why else would the Congress and the president have approved it? (Poor argument.) And that the second idea is sufficiently similar in its economic impact. (Shall we invoke systemic risk again? Populism? Dime-store ethics? ) So now there is a proposal from the Bush Administration to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac alter the mortgage terms for homeowners in danger of default. But since only 20 perecent of so of the distressed mortgages are with these giants, the government is urging other mortgage lenders to change the terms. But can they alter the terms when the mortgages have been bundled and resold? Must these new investors approve? Clearly, this will be a legal nightmare. Any remaining obstacles to the impairment of the original contractual obligations may well fall.

Those of us who put stock in slippery slope arguments used to say that that the slope proceeds little-by-little – as if we were on a continuum. But now the steps are big, the sliding will be fast and the costs will be big. It is one thing to try to avoid a deflation by preventing the collapse of the monetary base; it is quite another thing to try to avoid the discipline of the market and the necessary reallocation of resources by insulating firms and individuals from losses. This is tantamount to trying to annul the market. It will not be successful but, in the meanwhile, we must worry about the consequences of the attempt. More to come I fear.

Obama wasn't the first black president (and neither was Clinton)!

Thoughts on Bureaucracy: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

These government sponsored enterprises like Freddie and Fannie are curious, because there’s no obvious reason for them to exist in the form they do: instead of creating private companies to do all these jobs, the government could just do them itself. In fact, that’s how Fannie Mae got started, back in 1938: originally, it was a government agency endowed with the authority to buy mortgages, in the hope that this would expand the supply of credit to homeowners. It wasn’t until 1968 that Fannie was privatized. (Freddie Mac was created two years later, and was private from the start.) The main reason for the change was surprisingly mundane: accounting. At the time, Lyndon Johnson was concerned about the effect of the Vietnam War on the federal budget. Making Fannie Mae private moved its liabilities off the government’s books, even if, as the recent crisis made clear, the U.S. was still responsible for those debts. It was a bit like what Enron did thirty years later, when it used “special-purpose entities” to move liabilities off its balance sheet.
...
Do we need Fannie and Freddie at all? Their supposed reason for being is that their ability to borrow money at low rates lowers borrowing costs for homeowners. But a paper by the economist Wayne Passmore, of the Federal Reserve, suggests that in fact Fannie and Freddie have only a small effect on the interest rates that homeowners pay, saving them less than one-tenth of a percentage point. More important, if the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that homeownership is not an unalloyed economic good, and that we should be cautious about using gimmicks to make it more attractive. The government already offers homeowners a subsidy, in the form of a mortgage tax break. Given everything else we could be spending taxpayer money on, does the government really need to be in the mortgage-buying business, too?

Ok, this is the way girls should be with each other in bed (It's just kissing...sorry)

Stat of the Day

In Nevada, one in every 118 households received a foreclosure-related notice in May, more than four times the national rate.

Greenspan: Part of the Problem

So Alan Greenspan was on ABC about a month ago and once again reporters could not connect him to this mess. To introduce Greenspan ABC said, "For more on this we are now joined by the man who knows more about these problems than just about anyone else in the country, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan."

In retrospect, we would all be much better off right now if he'd known more about a few "potential" problems five or six years ago, rather than keeping the gas pedal pegged to the floorboard while looking the other way as all sorts of mischief began on Wall Street.

Looking back, maybe all that energy spent heaping praise on "financial innovation" and the "diversification of risk" - that same "innovation" and "diversification" that now seem to have brought the world just past the point where Wile E. Coyote realizes there is no ground beneath his feet - might have been better spent mustering just a small bit of skepticism.

The whole country believed there was such a thing as "a free lunch".

Now it turns out there isn't.

The former Fed chief once again identified home price stability as the key to financial market stability, an argument that could also have been made back when home prices were going up as fast as they are now going down.

That is, when everyone was growing rich beyond their wildest dreams without even breaking a sweat, simply because they owned a home.

Americans turned to their equally-rich neighbors and said, "What a country!"

Today, they are saying the same thing, but with a decidedly different tone.

His best guess for home prices leveling off is early-2009, so, anyone thinking about making a home purchase should adjust their buying plans accordingly (i.e., wait until late-2009 at least, since, over the past six years, the former Fed chairman is batting about 0-for-1,000 in his housing market predictions).

It is truly amazing the amount of hubris that is still in this man given what now lies in his wake. In his own revisionist history, he portrays himself as something of an innocent bystander, helpless to effect change at the time, yet lending a hand as best he can now.

While not entirely to blame for what is unfolding, he was a very big cog in the machine.

It is also truly amazing that so many in the media continue to be incapable of connecting some very large, simple dots over the last 25 years.

The Wisdom of Ron Paul

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) made awhile ago the somewhat obvious observation, "You can't save free markets by socialism.
"

Factoid Day!!!

The second and third presidents - John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - both died on July 4th, 1826, exactly 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Spiderman, Spiderman, does whatever a spider can

Spiderman, Spiderman,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches thieves just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spiderman.

Is he strong?
Listen bud,
He's got radioactive blood.
Can he swing from a thread
Take a look overhead
Hey, there
There goes the Spiderman.

In the chill of night
At the scene of a crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time.

Spiderman, Spiderman
Friendly neighborhood Spiderman
Wealth and fame
He's ignored
Action is his reward.

To him, life is a great big bang up
Whenever there's a hang up
You'll find the Spider man.

California Gays Acting Stupid and Generally Showing that they are the "Nazis" in this case

Happy Veterans Day!

Liberty and Obama

I am just saying doesn't this remind you of a certain someone who acts like a demagogue?

How to treat loose women

By the time I have a son they'll be pre-programing him with information before he is three so I figure I should have data ready to enter. Here is one of the first things my kid is going to learn:
When my son enters "Whore's Glore" he'll know how to handle these lovely ladies. Especially the lonely housewives and lesbians.

Crocodile Plastic Box of Death

"The Australians, not content to dive in the ocean deep with a mere shark cage, have taken to hopping in the water with 19.6ft long salt water crocodiles using nothing but 4cm of acrylic plastic to keep them safe. As the croc gnashes its teeth against the cage, you piss your pants, the wife takes some pics, and we once again reaffirm why dolphins are actually the dominant species on the planet.

The croc in question here, Choppa, was selected for this humiliating assignment because he lost two front teeth while fighting with some other 2,000lb. crocodiles at the Crocosaurus Cove amusement park.

"In the Northern Territory, the saltwater crocodile is an icon and is part of our life. They are always in the news, either in someone's swimming pool or killing someone's favorite horse," said Michael "That's not a knife, this is a knife" Scott, who opened the cage in July.

There have been no fatalities yet, although there are apparently some noticeable gashes in the plastic from the Choppa's remaining teeth."

Home Prices: Death Spiral

The S&P Case Shiller Home Price Index shows nine new all-time records for annual price declines, ten areas with double-digit drops, and seven areas with losses exceeding 20 percent.
The 10-City Composite posted a new record decline of 16.9 percent and the 20-City Composite recorded a record drop of 15.8 percent paced by Las Vegas and Miami, two former housing bubble hotspots that now appear to be in some sort of death match with both losing badly.

Phoenix looks likes it wants to get in there too and "mix it up".

Obama's Plan for GITMO Detainees

I just read the article announcing Obama's plan on detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO). I have mixed feelings about this, but until I read about more details I have a rather positive overall view so far. From what I understand Obama plans on releasing some people at GIMTO (problem the Uighers). Another group he will criminally prosecute in U.S. civilian courts. And here is what the article has said about the third group:

A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.

I for one might have problems with Obama's plan for the thrid group of detainnes. Will U.S. citizens be tired in this new court as well? What are the due process rights for these individuals? Also, a new court implies that the U.S. civilian courts can't handle classified information. What about the pentagon papers in New York Times v. U.S.? Didn't civilian courts review that case? Not sure why Obama thinks it is necessary to establish a court for one group of detainees but use the civilian courts for another.

Are the falling home prices the root cause of the financial crisis?

No. Falling home prices are not the root cause of the current mess. The root cause of the problem in housing today is that, for the last twenty years, the U.S. has had a "bubble economy" where money flows from one asset class to another, inflating prices beyond any reasonable measure of fair value.

By any historical standard, home prices are still too high. To think that if we can just stop home prices from falling and then, maybe, get them to go back up is a child-like view of the fundamental problems facing us today.

Until more people realize this, progress toward real solutions will not be made.

Ballout Spending

For those too sozzled to track what we're spending on on bailouts these days, here's a quick tally:

# $29 billion for Bear Stearns
# $143.8 billion for AIG (thus far, it keeps growing)
# $100 billion for Fannie Mae
# $100 billion for Freddie Mac
# $700 billion for Wall Street, including Bank of America (Merrill Lynch), Citigroup, JP Morgan (WaMu), Wells Fargo (Wachovia), Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and a lot more
# $25 billion for The Big Three in Detroit
# $8 billion for IndyMac
# $150 billion stimulus package (from January)
# $50 billion for money market funds
# $138 billion for Lehman Bros. (post bankruptcy) through JP Morgan
# $620 billion for general currency swaps from the Fed
# Rough total: $2,063,800,000,000

That's a little over $6,800 for every man, woman, and child, or just under $15,000 for each of America's 140 million taxpayers.

Why Obama and Democrats are wrong!

This is an old video but it is a great way to show why big government and socialistic principles are wrong.

Obama supporters already feeling let down:

"I want my money today! It's my money. I want it right now!" yelled one former campaign worker.

The large gathering of around 375 people prompted police to call in extra officers and set up temporary barricades....Eventually people did start getting paid, but some said they were missing hours and told to fill in paperwork making their claim and that eventually they would get a check in the mail.

"Still that's not right. I'm disappointed. I'm glad for the president, but I'm disappointed in this system," said Diane Jefferson.

Eerie, isn't it? Like looking into the future.

Comedians Declare They Just Can't Find Anything At All Funny About Barack Obama

So I guess the media is wondering if comedians will make fun of the Choosen One. Guess that is a negative by this account:

U.S. comedian Bill Maher said last month that having Barack Obama as the next president would make life difficult for comics because it was not easy to find things about the president-elect to make fun of.

In fairness, Bill Maher can't find anything funny about pretty much any topic.

Fake Messiah Takes A Shot At Elderly Widow

This Day in 1994

After a 40-year Democrat domination, the Republican Party gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as a Senate majority.

Remember party domination is neither assured or permanent.

The "Real" Victims of the Financial Crisis

Obama Administration: Forcing Americans to Serve

Be afraid. Be very afraid of what this man will force upon you.

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Quote of the Day!

“Less than fifty years ago, African-Americans were barred from public universities, restaurants, and even drinking fountains in many parts of the country. On Tuesday we came together and transcended that shameful legacy, electing an African-American to the country’s top job — which, in fact, appears to be his first actual job. Certainly, it doesn’t mean that racism has disappeared in America, but it is an undeniable mark of progress that a majority of voters no longer consider skin color nor a dangerously gullible naivete as a barrier to the presidency.” -- Iowahawk

How the Democrats Will Govern

Will the Democrats -- the President-elect and the House and Senate -- be liberal Ted Kennedy Democrats, or moderate Bill Clinton Democrats? That, it seems to me, is the main question.

I was no fan of Bill Clinton, but I was no great detractor of his, either; I think he was a smart guy and a pretty good President, especially when his private appetites didn't interfere with his public policy. He got welfare reform through, he was good on trade, and in general was pretty good as far as his domestic policy went. (In post-9/11 retrospect, we see the flaws in his foreign policy, but we see the same with regard to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush; both parties were no great shakes as to foreign policy in the immediately pre-9/11 era.) If the Obama Administration implements Clintonesque policies, I wouldn't be that worried. If it implements Ted-Kennedy-like policies, I would be worried.

Here's why I think the Clinton option is more likely: 1994, or to be precise the Democrats' awareness of 1994. Remember that in 1992, the Democratic Presidential candidate beat the Republican by 5.5%. (I realize Perot was something of a confounding factor, but it was clear this was a solid victory for the Democrats.) After the election, the Senate was 56-44 (without the shift in the Democrats' favor, but that shift had happened just a few years before). The House was 258-176 (with a slight shift against the Democrats, I realize), and a raw percentage of 49.9% to 44.8%. The Democrats were solidly in control, more or less to the same extent they are now. And then two years later, despite a good economy and no foreign policy problems, they lost both houses.

The Democrats, if they're politically savvy -- and I'm pretty sure they are -- realize that this could happen again in 2010. And this is especially so because of the extraordinarily high turnout this election: In 2010, many of the new voters from 2008 won't vote; it will be a midterm election, the charismatic Obama won't be on the ballot, and we'll be back to normal politics.

My sense is that the Democrats will govern with an eye towards that. Obviously, this gives an extra incentive to do things that are seen as helping the country as a whole, both in domestic and foreign policy. Nothing succeeds like success. If their policies are seen by the country as working, and as compatible with the values of the center as well as of the left, the Democrats will win in 2010 -- and they'll deserve to win.

But the prospect of the 2010 election, in front of a very different-looking electorate than the one that voted in 2008, also gives Democrats an incentive to be relatively moderate, and to avoid both risky gambles and political programs that are seen as benefiting the Democratic base (either materially or symbolically) at the expense of the center.

Tips for Conservatives trying to debate Big Government GOPers

Don't wrestle with pigs; you get dirty and they like it.

Here comes January 20, 2009

Here comes January 10, 2009

Sums up Obama Supporters

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Quote of the Day!

"In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines." -- Benjamin Disraeli

Quote of the Day!

'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.'

- Thomas Jefferson.

Be Afraid: The Bailout Bill

New Jersey Turning Purple?

The survey was done between September 10 and 14, so, like the New York poll that showed Obama with only a five-point lead, so it doesn't fully reflect the vicious attacks that have been launched by the media over recent days. It may turn out to be a high-water mark for McCain. Still, this can't be what Obama had in mind when he talked about running a 50-state race.

Quote of the Day!

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

- Hillary Clinton

There ain't a fuckin' thing wrong with our planet that drilling more holes in it won't fix.

This about sums it up

This is a wonderful thing

The Next Vice President of the United States

McCain and Palin!

Jermiah Wright--Best line from this video: “If you don’t want to get treated different, then don’t ask to get treated special.”

Black & White on the Grey Matters (Jermiah Wright)

Here's a black Man I would vote for

Black & White on the Grey Matters 2 (War)

To my Catholic Friends (And Wife):

Conservative Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec has endorsed Barak Obama for president in this year's election and offers a strange rationalization for voting in support of a pro-abortion candidate. I'll try to present the reasons why Kmiec's rationalization is wrong and why Catholic Doctrine should either be left out of a person's decision on who to vote or that it doesn't necessariloy point to a vote for a Democrat. Kmiec offers a formulation used often by Catholics when voting for such liberal candidates:

Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative Catholic legal scholar at Pepperdine School of Law, said that although the formal teachings of the American Catholic bishops put primacy on the sanctity of life, including fetuses and embryos, doctrine allows for voting on other grounds, including the Iraq war, which the Vatican has opposed from the start.

Mr. Kmiec, a Republican who served in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, said he was supporting Mr. Obama because his platform met the standard of justice and concern for the poor the church has always defended. This year, Mr. Kmiec was denied communion by a priest at a gathering of Catholic business people because of his support for Mr. Obama. Mr. Kmiec said, “The proper question for Catholics to ask is not ‘Can I vote for him?’ but ‘Why shouldn’t I vote for the candidate who feels more passionately and speaks more credibly about economic fairness for the average family, who will be a true steward of the environment, and who will treat the immigrant family with respect?’”

Issues of economic fairness do appear in the Catholic catechism, although only in general terms. The teachings do not prescribe a certainty of policy as Catholic or un-Catholic. Paragraphs 1938, 1941, and 1947 emphasize the need for action by Catholics to reduce sinful inequalities between the rich and the poor, but generally casts this in rather stark terms, with to the quality of life of little resemblance those deemed poor in the US:

• 43% of the poor own their homes, and the average home is a three-bedroom house with a garage and 1.5 bathrooms
• Over two-thirds of households have two rooms per occupant, which belies the notion of overcrowding
• 80% of the poor have air conditioning
• Almost 75% own one car; 31% own two or more
• The average living space for the American poor is larger than the average space for all people in Paris, Vienna, and London, among other cities in Europe

Furthermore, the catechism talks mostly about personal work to resolve sinful inequalities, not the establishment of a government mandate that operates under a redistributionist policy. It doesn’t forbid it, either, and that’s really the point. Both parties want to help Americans live well, but have different philosophies on how to get there. Voters in general should support the candidate who best represents their own approach to these issues, but that has nothing to do with Catholicism.

Neither does the Iraq war. While the Vatican disagreed with it, war itself does not violate Catholic doctrine (para 2309). The catechism does explicitly call “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas” a violation of doctrine, but the US has not engaged in that kind of warfare in decades, and not ever without substantial provocation (para 2314). Nor is it even applicable in this context, since the war in Iraq is over, and both candidates support an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. Once again, voters have to rely on something other than Catholic teachings to cast their vote.

However, the doctrine on abortion for Catholics leaves no room for any subjective application of other values. Paragraph 2271 plainly casts “every procured abortion” as a “moral evil”, and reinforces that by stating plainly that this teaching is irrevocable. Paragraph 2272 calls “formal cooperation” in abortion a “grave offense”, meaning a mortal sin. Why? Here, science and faith intersect. Scientifically, an embryo has life at the moment when the cells divide, if not a few minutes earlier at conception. Further, the embryo is innately human, with unique DNA specific to humans — and is therefore human life, regardless of its level of convenience to the mother. Catholicism teaches that human life, especially innocent human life, is sacred and “must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.”

Anyone who formally cooperates in abortion, therefore, sins, and cannot honestly receive the Eucharist until they repent. That conclusion is inescapable from the catechism in paragraphs 2271, 2272, and 2274, and explicit in 2322:

From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

Regardless of how Catholics feel about economic “fairness” or the Iraq war, that trumps all else for observant Catholics. Formal cooperation with abortion means excommunication, which indicates just how foundational this issue is for the Church and its members.

Many Catholics maneuver around this by simply ignoring it, and they’re free to do so. Membership in the Church is voluntary, after all, and people can leave the Catholic Church if they disagree with its catechism (and strictly speaking, they should do so under those circumstances). However, it’s either a gross misrepresentation or self-delusion to argue that abortion is simply one issue among many for observant Catholics and that economic policy or foreign affairs can outweigh it.

While Catholic teaching creates separation to better to secure religious liberty (Matthew 22:21: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."), it also contemplates that practice will integrate religion with everyday life including civic duties such a voting. As such Catholic Doctrine enjoins upon life and government not separateness but interdependence, not autonomy but reciprocity. As pronounced in Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.