The Visible Hand Strikes Again.

Once again, The Economist hits the nail on the head with a write-up of the now infamous "cash for clunkers" program:

Rebate schemes like this tend to encourage buyers to advance purchases that they would have made anyway, thus cannibalising future sales. The termination of a car-scrappage scheme in France in the 1990s led to sales plunging by 20%. Nor is it certain that the scheme provides a more general boost to the economy, as buyers may have been put off other purchases in order to afford a new vehicle.
...
The green benefits are also hotly contested. The scheme should help to make America’s car fleet slightly less fuel inefficient, but there are significant environmental costs in scrapping perfectly good cars and building new ones.

The American economy is an incredibly complicated machine. When the government decides to stick its greasy hands inside and fiddle around with the parts, bad things tend to happen. This isn't to say that government policy can't have positive effects -- but in almost every case, it comes at a price. Short-sighted policies that promise too-good-to-be-true benefits lose their shine when the consequences come a-knockin' on the public's door.

Right now, members of congress are considering a piece of legislation that would transform America's massive healthcare industry. The benefits are obvious: everyone gets healthcare coverage. But before trigger-happy reformers vote aye, they might want to dwell on the unintended consequences of their pet project. Yes, just about every modern country provides universal healthcare coverage. But a lot of those countries have to deal with huge doses of taxation, high levels of sustained unemployment, and a stagnant work force.

After considering the pros and cons, a lot of people may still support the legislation. The good of universal coverage may outweigh the associated evils.

But there are some things that no one can foresee. Our economy is based on billions of unpredictable transactions between individuals. If seemingly harmless programs like "cash for clunkers" can create unintended ripples in this economic ocean, what could happen when the government gives one of our largest industries an extreme makeover?

I'm really not sure. But you can bet it won't be all unicorns and rainbows.

Watering The Tree Of Liberty With The Blood Of Sub-Par Cable Pundits.

So, some guy brought a gun to a protest outside of Obama's healthcare town hall in New Hampshire. That guy went on Hardball with Chris Matthews. And this is what happened:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Is it just me, or does Mr. Radical Gun Nut seem a lot more collected and rational than Matthews? This was clearly meant to turn into a shouting match, but Kostric never took the bait. And shouldn't television personalities be held to a slightly higher standard when it comes to hair? The dead ferret perched atop Chris Matthews' noggin is kind of distracting.

Workers Of The World Unite! ... Please?

Leftists around the world were thrilled when the world economy came a-tumblin' down last year. Capitalism had failed! It was time for the people to arise, and create a new, better order, full of rainbows and the equitable distribution of income!

But when it came time for elections in Europe -- a stronghold of center-left politics -- things didn't work out quite as planned. In short, the socialists got pwned.

A new article from The Economist does a good job of examining this phenomenon:

With the exception of Greece, the European elections in June were a disaster for social democratic parties. From France to Austria, centre-leftists failed to harness dislike of conservative incumbents. There was a swing against ruling socialists from Bulgaria (where they were ousted from national power in July) to Britain (whose prime minister, Gordon Brown, looks irredeemably unpopular). In Spain supporters of the ruling socialists tried hard to convince people that they were as upset as anybody about unemployment of nearly 20%, but voters still nudged to the right.

Elsewhere in the world, the picture is more mixed. But in almost every democracy, politicians who style themselves progressive face a common set of problems, to do with shrinking treasuries, looming environmental challenges, general pessimism and the resurgence of nationalism.

But the situation is more complex than it seems. As the article notes, "conservative" politicians, including France's beloved Sarko, haven't hesitated to bash capitalism and institute massive government bailout programs.

American conservatives looking for a ray of hope would do well to remember that the left/right distinction has always been relative; the Democratic Party would be considered center-right by European standards.

Even so, Europe's shift to the right is a good reminder that triumphalists are lousy at predicting the future. Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority" was an illusion, and the shine is already wearing off Obama's magical presidency. Politically speaking, shift happens. In America, conservatives were in power when the economy took a dive, so they received a drubbing at the polls. But in countries where socialism held sway, leftists suffered a similar fate.

Some people vote according to unbending ideological principles. But the rest seem content to settle for voting the bums out, whoever the bums may be.

Drinking Their Troubles Away.

It's finally here! The moment we've all been waiting for in breathless anticipation!

The beer summit.

For two weeks, America has been enthralled by the epic racial drama that began with a 9-11 call, and ended with the arrest of a prominent black professor who just happened to be buddies with the prez.

Liberals decried the "racially motivated" actions of Jim Crowley, the police officer who put professor Henry Louis Gates in handcuffs. Conservatives pinned the blame on Gates, attempting to portray him as a racialist black-power nutcase.

Obama added fuel to the fire when he asserted that the police acted "stupidly." Later, the president tried to soften his statement. But it was too late -- commentators already had all the fodder they needed to create a delightful storm of made-for-cable-news controversy.

But now, it will all come to an end, as Obama The Uniter descends from his lofty throne to reconcile both sides of the conflict. Tonight, Crowley, Gates, and Obama will gather 'round a picnic table outside the White House, drink beer, and learn a valuable lesson about tolerance.

But there's another lesson that can be learned from the Gates-Crowley affair, and it has nothing to do with race-relations in America. It's a lesson about how the media can turn a meaningless series of unfortunate events into a public issue that everyone needs to care about.

Henry Louis Gates was an intellectual who lost his house key.

Jim Crowley was a police officer responding to a call about a break-in.

Gates was understandably upset that Crowley suspected him of breaking into his own home. He made a scene. Crowley was understandably upset about being chewed out by Gates. He arrested him for disorderly conduct.

Afterwards, Gates was promptly released.

The story was newsworthy, because Gates is a public figure. But it wasn't a story of all-consuming importance. At best, it was an odd story about a semi-famous person in a strange situation. It deserved a short blurb, and nothing more.

But Gates' racial interpretation of the event was too juicy to ignore, and two weeks later, a Rasmussen poll shows that 75% of Americans are still following the story "somewhat closely."

Oh well. Nothing washes away the flavor of legislative gridlock and plummeting approval ratings like knocking back a few cold ones with a cop and a seriously ticked-off academic.

King County: The Final Frontier.

He's a man with a plan for King County.

His plan involves sky homes. Tall, tall sky homes.

And please, don't call him Michael Nelson.

"It's Goodspaceguy," he reminds me, as he signs a release form.

"There are over 50,000 Michael Nelsons in the United States. But I googled a bunch of space-related names, and no one else was using Goodspaceguy."

Legally, only his middle name has been changed to Goodspaceguy. But who cares? He is Goodspaceguy, he's running for King County Executive -- and it's time for his close-up.

Goodspaceguy is now sitting in a studio at KCTS Channel 9, Seattle's PBS station. From my vantage point in the control room, he looks very pleased with himself. Three cameras are fixed on him. A man is applying powder to his almost-completely-bald head. It'll reduce the glare. His face breaks into an impish grin.

"I was in Los Angeles sitting in the audience for the making of an entertainment show, and during the breaks, people would pop up and put make-up on the people on stage. But now I'm the one getting powdered."

Triumph.

As a libertarian without any government experience -- and an outspoken advocate for a mass-exodus to orbiting space colonies -- Seattle hasn't always been so kind to Goodspaceguy. As he bitterly noted in a posting on his blog:

"This is the tenth time that I, Goodspaceguy, am a candidate for public office, but I am slammed back; I am censored; I am not allowed to speak."

But now, he is being allowed to speak. And he does.

He mainly speaks about economics. In fact, he makes it clear that he considers himself to be an economist, prefacing his statements with an authoritative, "as an economist, I..."

In Goodspaceguy's estimation, the economy has been sabotaged by everyone, including "the people." He compares King County planners to Soviet officials, and rails against the minimum wage.

The picture he paints has dire overtones: "Government is taking a sledgehammer and beating the people in this country," Goodspaceguy says.

Crime, he insists, is an economic problem. If a gang member got a job, his peers would follow his example, and become productive members of society. It's that simple.

Traffic congestion will soon be a thing of the past, thanks to "sky homes." You know, like the ones they have in Vancouver, Canada. If there are many sky homes, people can live near their work, and won't have to drive. Yes.

Goodspaceguy compares the citizens of King County to a big family; a part of the larger human family that currently inhabits "spaceship earth." He says that we should strive to increase our knowledge. And we should have more free parking.

Then, it's all over.

But I'm not satisfied. Goodspaceguy's signature issue -- man's galactic future -- wasn't even touched on. And there are so many questions left to ask. So many that must be asked.

So, I caught Goodspaceguy in the hallway, and asked him if he had time to answer a few more questions. He had time.

I began with a search for Goodspaceguy's philosophical roots.

"You refer to yourself as an economist. What other economists have influenced your thought -- which ones do you agree with?"

He couldn't think of any. He only reads introductory textbooks, because they give you a "broad perspective."

Disappointed, I changed the subject.

"In economics, it's assumed that people always pursue their own interests. Why would people want to go to live in orbiting space colonies?"

He acknowledged that there will be challenges. But the end-result will be inevitable.

"At first, few will come. Then more, and more, and more, as (the colonies) become nicer."

According to Goodspaceguy, the orbiting space colonies will be gigantic. But he doesn't plan on abandoning good ol' Earth:

"I want to make Earth into a paradise," he says in a reassuring voice.

So far, so good. But why orbiting space colonies? Couldn't we build space colonies the old fashioned way -- on the ground? On Mars, perhaps?

It all comes down to gravity. Because the orbiting space colonies will be able to spin at variable speeds, they'll also be able to generate the same level of gravity found on Earth.

In the world of Goodspaceguy, everyone is divided into two classes: the ground-huggers, and the enlightened few. Ground-huggers go about their daily lives, raising children, and working normal jobs. They aren't evil -- but they aren't able to grasp the higher truths of existence. And sometimes, their ignorance leads them astray.

"I think it was the ground-huggers that supported Hitler," Goodspaceguy says.

Goodspaceguy is not a ground-hugger.

But if mankind's future is in the stars, why was he silent about it during his interview in the studio?

"A lot of people aren't educated about it, so I don't talk as much about it as I could," Goodspaceguy says.

"If you were to tell people in the past about the way things are now, people would think you're crazy. They'd think it was lunacy," he quickly adds.

Fair enough.

A Family Affair.

When Mark Sanford vanished, it was a big story. When he reappeared, and confessed to an affair with a woman in Argentina, it became a once-in-a-lifetime feast of scandal and intrigue.

And it didn't take long for pundits to pull out the hypocrisy card.

You see, Mark Sanford's south-of-the-border infidelity was only a minor sin, on par with downloading the second season of ALF on Bittorent. And we've all been there, right? Yes, the real crime was that Sanford had the gall to promote "family values" while he indulged in private iniquity. Sanford was a hypocrite.

Senator John Ensign, another conservative Republican, had just admitted to an affair of his own a week earlier. Another hypocrite.

So, people started to connect the dots:

Sanford.
Ensign.
Vitter.
Craig.
Foley.

The already-triumphant left became jubulient. They finally had a dossier of evidence that discredited those religious-right loonies once and for all.

It was so simple: anyone who really cared about family values would have no choice but to migrate to the Democratic Party, led by shiny dad-in-chief Obama.

But wait -- what about all those Democratic sex scandals?

Like John Edwards, who fathered an illegitimate child while his wife was stricken with cancer?
Like Elliot Spitzer, who hired a prostitute?
And didn't his successor, David Patterson, have... marital problems.... of his own?
What about big-city mayors like Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newsom, and Antonio Villaraigosa?
Or President Bill Clinton?

Gosh. It sure looks like this whole infidelity thing doesn't really respect party lines. But what about the hypocrisy thing? Democrats may cheat, but are they hypocrites?

To a certain extent, yes.

Politicians of all stripes try to paint themselves as model family men. It isn't a Republican thing. And generally, Republicans are no more judgmental than Democrats. It's worth noting that Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, was the first divorced President.

Sure, Republicans have a habit of attacking Democrats for their personal failings, but Democrats are all too happy to return the favor. Whenever a tawdry scandal is exposed, you can bet that people will exploit it for political gain.

And Republicans may tend to take conservative positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but frankly, neither of those issues have much to do with cheating on your spouse. Opponents of gay marriage may talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, and traditional values, but supporters of gay marriage appear to believe that marriage is pretty darn important as well, and I haven't heard of any Democrats (unless Woody Allen counts) who openly support infidelity.

But even if conservatives alone bore the stain of hypocrisy, would it matter?

Not really.

When someone fails to live up to the standards they preach, they discredit themselves -- not their standards. If Officer Bob tells a classroom full of kiddies to stay off drugs, and then goes home and overdoses on painkillers, it doesn't become okay to become a pill-popping fiend. And when a socially-conservative politician has a fling with a South American vixen, it doesn't mean that marriage is a sham. It means he is.

Thank goodness. If we tossed out ideals every time we failed to live up to them, we wouldn't have much left to believe in.

The idea that Republicans are losing their "values voter" cred is just as absurd. Socially conservative voters support Republicans because they agree with their policies. Voters in South Carolina may give Sanford the boot, but it's unlikely that they'll replace him with a liberal Democrat.

In the end, cheaters like Sanford, Ensign or Clinton are just people who did something bad. Sometimes their careers die, and sometimes they don't. Their actions don't -- and shouldn't -- herald the death of a party or an ideology. Anyone who pretends that adultery (or hypocrisy) is a Republican problem or a Democratic problem is willfully ignorant.

It turns out that there are humans in both parties. Who knew?

When Worlds Collide.

Barack Obama's much-hyped speech to the Muslim world won't change anything. But it was a pretty good piece of political rhetoric.

Yes, he presented a white-washed version of Islamic history, but what else could he do? He's trying to make friends. And generally, you don't diss the people you want to befriend.

Most refreshingly, Obama resisted the temptation to identify Bush administration policies as the root of America's conflict with the Muslim world, as he's done on past occasions.

And while there were the expected apologies for past American actions in the Middle East (like the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq), Obama had equally strong praise for the good ol' USA.

Even so, it's beyond naive to assume that rhetoric will do anything to cure the Middle East's problems.

As Obama acknowledged, the conflict between Islamic nations and the West has been going on for a long time. But Obama's dead wrong when he assumes that all this fighting is the result of a communication problem. Like Bush, Obama assumes that all people essentially share the same set of values. It's a beautiful idea, but it's also completely wrong.

Not everyone is a fan of freedom, peace, equality, and tolerance. Historically, very few nations have celebrated these values the way modern societies do, and many nations still reject them. There are a variety reasons why this happens. Some people value the stability of tradition over the chaos that results from individual expression. Some people believe that the collective will should be exalted above personal choices.

And yes, many Muslims reject democratic values because of their religious beliefs.

Like all religions, Islam is complicated. To say that Islam has always been a religion of violence and intolerance would be inaccurate. But to characterize it as a force for peace and tolerance would be just as lopsided. Historically, most Islamic rulers allowed Christians and Jews to exist in their lands. But non-Islamic citizens were hardly equal. Their testimony was disregarded in court, and they were forced to pay a special tax. At times, they were forced to wear distinctive clothing. The Ottoman Empire populated its army with military slaves known as janisaries, most of whom were kidnapped from Christian families when they were children.

While the extermination of religious minorities was rarely official policy, it did happen.

There are verses in the Koran that imply that Christians and Jews will get to paradise, but there are also verses that seem to command Muslims to conquer unbelievers. Even if many modern Muslims would rather live and let live, you don't have to be a history professor to figure out that Muslims in the past felt differently about the matter. And there are still plenty of Muslims who follow the path of violent jihad.

Islamic jurists from different sects have conflicting opinions regarding Islam's compatibility with modern values. Needless to say, some come down firmly against them. While it's true that several Islamic countries have had female leaders, the broader state of women's rights -- and human rights in general -- in the Muslim world is still dismal. Assuming that all of this is just a massive coincidence, or the result of Western imperialism, is nonsense.

The arrogance of Western commentators is their constant claim that "true Islam" is peaceful. Some Islamic sects are peaceful, others aren't. What gives someone the authority to decide which ones are "true?"

I don't think that most Muslims are "bad people" by human standards. I don't think most of them want to kill me. I think they have some legitimate grievances against the West.

But radical Islam isn't an insignificant force in the Middle East. And its adherents don't share our values.

One of the great failures of humanistic policy makers has been their failure to understand the reality of god-centered religions. They assume that a common ethical core lies beneath the veneer of religious belief. If someone does bad things, it's simply because they're poor and oppressed. This is the flawed worldview that Obama espoused when he talked about people "clinging to guns and religion" because of economic hardship.

But in reality, many people do things simply because they believe it's what their god wants them to do -- whether or not it benefits them personally. Their values are not centered around humanistic ethics, or a survival instinct.

Material poverty can help spark an interest in radicalism, but not all radicals are poor. The Bin Laden family certainly isn't hurting for cash, but that didn't stop lil' Osama from going astray.

What am I getting at?

I'm not sure. In the real world, there's not much the American government can do beyond the things we're already doing: fighting terrorists when possible, allying ourselves with moderates in the region, and attempting to coax skeptical Muslims with reasonable concessions and kind words.

But reality should always inform our decisions. And the reality is that some people are very different from us, and will probably never be like us -- no matter how much we try to be their friends.

This is the world we live in. Coming to terms with it doesn't give us a clear roadmap for the future -- but it doesn't hurt either.