Hillary Clinton says she made a “mistake” when she repeatedly gave a false account of having been under sniper fire in Bosnia.

I’m still trying to figure out which is worse for her as a prospective candidate…if she knowingly lied, or if she believed an elaborate false memory.

It seems like she’d like us to believe that the latter is true.

So, is she asking people to vote for her because of the experience she has, or the experience she thinks she has?

So, I’ve finally watched (and read) the entire speech by Barack Obama on race that so many bloggers (including libertarians) have been gushing about. I agree that Obama is very bright, and that his speeches (including this one) are very well-crafted and well-delivered. And, I think he did a good job of defending his refusal to completely disown Rev. Wright after the wide distribution of inflammatory video.

But, I didn’t really see anything new or brilliant in the speech that seems likely to lead to great consequences. He said some true things that most people don’t talk about. He pointed out that there are explanations for each of the different (often angry) positions staked out in the race controversies. He tapped into the strong feelings that many of us have about race, and our hopes that the problems can be solved.

But, with all of his stirring oratory, I didn’t see any evidence that he’s likely to improve things. I’m afraid he’s just likely to cause more and more people to fall for “Politicians Logic“, that:

1) Something must be done.

2) This is something.

3) Therefore, we must do it.

His focus on policy prescriptions are hard to find, but what I find isn’t very encouraging:

By investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations…Let us be our brother’s keeper…Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well. This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools… This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together… This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

When I look at Obama’s policy prescriptions (in this speech, and others), I don’t see much that inspires hope in me. There is some good stuff, like more transparency in many areas of federal activity. But, I mainly see pandering to anti-trade irrationality, appeals to class resentment, proposals for the federal government to “invest” in every possible solution to people’s problems, anti-speech campaign “reforms”, favoritism toward unions, socialization of health care, increasing burdensome regulations, etc. The same old leftist drivel.

When I hear Obama, I feel like I’m hearing Peter Pan ask us to all clap our hands if we believe in fairies. Exhorting us to believe and hope hard enough to get these pigs to fly.

Well, I think that these are bad policies, and that no amount of hope and optimism will make them good ones. I’m sure that we can all think of talented politicians who persuaded the masses to follow them down the wrong roads. I understand that it feels good. I’m sure that new street gang members feel good about the solidarity, and camaraderie and shared commitments that they have. But, it’s a sham. It’s not in their, or our, interests for them to join these projects even though it feels good.

I don’t believe in fairies.

We survived FDR’s New Deal, and LBJ’s Great Society, and I’m sure we can survive Obama’s Perfect Union (or whatever inspiring name he gives this pile of policies).

But, I hope we don’t have to.

I admit to a few seconds of schadenfreude when I heard that NY Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught buying prostitution services, and that it will probably end his political career.

But, then, I felt a little uncomfortable by all of the glee expressed on some of the libertarian blogs I read. I don’t really like the idea of anybody suffering because of unjust laws. In fact, I don’t like the idea of anybody suffering at all. Not really.

Of course, it’s hard to argue with Glen Whitman, who wrote that “The only people I think should be prosecuted for victimless crimes are people who have prosecuted others for those crimes.”

Also, I suppose that if somebody had to suffer because of the silly enforcement of this victimless crime law, it’s better that it’s a pompous, abusive, bullying jerk like Spitzer, who has ruined many other people’s lives for his own glory.

I don’t know whether or not New York is likely to get a better or a worse replacement; so it’s not clear to me whether this is a good thing for their political scene.

My pie-in-the-sky hope is that all of this attention will hasten the day that prostitution is legalized.

It was upsetting, but not shocking, to read about the recent California Court of Appeals decision In Re Rachel L., that asserted that “Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” and that homeschooling is illegal unless the parent has a teaching credential.

I’m not sure whether this is a bad decision in terms of how it applies existing law, but it sure is bad in terms of protecting basic rights.

Fortunately, it seems that Gov. Schwarzenegger has the right idea about all of this, and will urge the improvement of existing law.

Perhaps this can be like the Kelo v. City of New London case that ruled against property rights, but raised awareness enough to change the laws in several states, and reduce incidence of eminent domain abuses.

There’s too much to say about schooling in a single blog post, but I just want to note that it’s amazing how blind so many people, who claim to be vitally concerned about civil liberties, can be to the basic injustice of the state position. Children are not criminals. They do not deserve to be forced into state education facilities. Homeschooling is not producing worse outcomes than public schooling. It seems to be an article of faith in the religion of statism that children are better off going to state-run schools.

I agree that children should be protected from parents who deny them access to basic information about the world to the extent that it inhibits their ability to develop the knowledge and skills required for a successful, independent, adulthood.

But, it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that mandating school attendance (with state-credentialed teachers) is very far from the most reasonable way to achieve this protection.

Children have a right to be fed, too! But, we don’t mandate that state-credentialed nutrition professionals prepare each child’s food. I can imagine the high cost and low quality of that food.

I typically don’t have enough emotional energy to devote to hating people, but the following video makes me come close to hating Officer Rivieri:

What do you think?

Fortunately, it seems that he was suspended after the video came out.

Perhaps I’m a bit biased, because I have a special aversion to the abuse of authority and to the mistreatment of children. But, watching this video made me hope that Rivieri is not only suspended, but permanently removed from any position of authority over other people. He shouldn’t even be a manager at a fast food restaurant!

The guy is a bully. And, he behaved just like a gang-member; demanding unearned respect, and confusing respect with fear. Maybe he agrees with Hillary Clinton that “It Takes A Village” to raise a child, but I think most children are better off being raised by people whom they know and love.

It’s especially sad because it makes it even harder for those officers who don’t abuse their positions to get the positive recognition and respect that they deserve.

Another thought that this brings to mind is that if we are creeping into a surveillance society, the first people who should be under constant surveillance are law enforcement officers. If they do their jobs right, they should have nothing to fear. It would help protect us from this kind of excess,
and it would prove useful as a source of evidence that’s much more reliable than frail memories.

In the mean time, three cheers for YouTube and people like the one who recorded and posted this incident. Who knows how often this stuff goes on without being recorded? Hopefully, the prevalence of privately controlled cameras will bring about more professionalism among our “servants.”

Amount John McCain spent in the primaries by the end of 2007: $39 Million

Overall primaries spending limit for those receiving public funding: $50 Million

Having McCain’s front running campaign hamstrung by the inevitable effects of his own authoritarian speech-limiting regulatory regime: Priceless

Unfortunately, I suspect that a political insider like McCain will manage to get around this problem (something an outsider would have much more trouble doing).

But, it sure is satisfying to see the web of regulations actually hurting someone who richly deserves it, for once.

Today, I was led by this New York Times article to a new site (bigthink.com) for the sharing of ideas (“A YouTube for ideas.”).

I haven’t spent very much time there, yet, but it seems to be a good idea, well executed. If they can keep the quality from degrading, it should be a great resource.

I don’t have much to say about the presidential primaries other than that I’m pleased by all the attention that Ron Paul’s candidacy has garnered for libertarian ideas. I hope that the enthusiasm extends beyond this election season. [Update: I wrote this before learning of the TNR hit-piece. I’m reserving judgment because I don’t know the facts. But, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.]

One other thing to pass along, however, is Bryan Caplan’s recent article debunking five oft-repeated myths about voting and elections. The myths are:

1. People vote their self-interest.

2. Unselfish voting will solve our problems.

3. Voters’ errors balance out.

4. Political disagreement is all about values.

5. Voters want serious change.

These are some of the points he makes in his great book: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies

Everyone who cares about democracy should become familiar with his thesis.

If you don’t have time to read the whole book, you can get the gist of it from his Cato policy analysis, as well as the Cato Unbound discussion beginning with his lead essay.

Needless to say, I agree with him. I think most voters do, indeed, have persistent biases that lead to all of us getting bad policies enacted.

I’m not sure what to do about it. A good first step, though, is probably to recognize and understand the problem.

After that, if we’re to escape from this worsening situation, it seems that we’ll either need a radical transformation in which ideas are dominant in our culture, or some structural changes to our institutions, or (probably) both.

After a recent conversation at work about driving, traffic jams, the lingering effects of excessive braking and stopping, a colleague sent me a link to this
article that purports to have finally solved a mystery of traffic jams mathematically.

To me, this was nothing new or exciting. I recalled reading this much better set of pages years ago. The author made many of the same observations, and reached many of the same conclusions, that I (and I’m sure many others) had done independently.

The basic idea is that the efficiency of the flow of heavy traffic can be dramatically affected by sudden stops and blockages, and these can have long-lasting effects (the wave of stopped cars often grows from the back faster than it shrinks from the front…). If even a fairly small percentage of drivers would change their driving habits to leave more room in front of their cars and slow down more gradually, to reduce complete stops and allow others to change lanes more smoothly, we would see much better traffic flows.

I think that this is yet another case of people’s intellectual laziness preventing them from making a simple change to their behaviors that would improve things dramatically. In this case, we can create a huge positive externality (save people’s time, gas, stress) with no real cost to ourselves (other than changing how we drive).

Many people will never do this. I know people (and have observed many others) who drive as though it’s a race that they will lose if they don’t pass other cars, or if they let someone in front of them. So, they make abrupt lane changes that causes others to brake, they follow too closely and have to brake quickly and cause those behind them to do likewise, they refuse to let others into their lane which causes people to stop to make their change, and/or to let a car in. Not only is this stupid, and dangerous, and stressful; but it also makes life worse for everyone else. These people are exacerbating the situation that made them enraged in the first place.

I certainly don’t expect to get enough readers of this blog to change their driving habits and make a noticeable change to traffic congestion. But, perhaps if each of you who agrees will not only change your habits, but will also encourage others to do likewise (and so on, and so on…), perhaps it might help.

And even if that doesn’t happen, just changing your own habits will help traffic to some extent. And, you’ll be beating most other drivers in a more important dimension than being further ahead in traffic: living intelligently.

I’ve tried to like Mitt Romney.

He strikes me as a smart, decent, presidential-looking guy with a sense of humor and good instincts. His past has certainly seemed pretty socially liberal, even if it isn’t feasible to appear that way to the Republican base now. He also seems to understand economics, and talks like someone who wants to liberalize things in that sphere as well. And, his kids seem to think he’s great.

His Mormonism doesn’t bother me. I don’t think it’s an order of magnitude more silly than the more popular religions.

But, it’s tough for me to tell where his obligatory pandering to the Religious Right ends, and his actual craziness and intolerance begins.

I found a lot about his recent speech about religion to be disturbing.

Not only did he mischaracterize the positions of the founders with respect to the relationship between religion and the government (this is common), but he seemed to exclude the non-religious from the picture entirely.

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

And…

Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

And…

It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

And…

And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

I’m not the only one who noticed this. Romney didn’t explicitly say that he hates people like me, but he certainly implied that I’m not included in his sphere of friends and allies.

I found it interesting that this speech took place at the George H.W. Bush Library and included praise of the former president. That’s because George H.W. Bush once said:

No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.

Romney seems intent on following the same, stupid, tradition.

[UPDATE] To be fair, I was recently referred to this Meet The Press interview in which Romney clarified his position, saying “Oh, of course” atheists can be moral (on an individual basis), and wouldn’t be excluded from opportunities in his administration.