DRIVING HOME YESTERDAY, I had some thoughts about the Graetz & Shapiro book on the politics of the Estate Tax that I mentioned yesterday.

Graetz & Shapiro want to understand how the political culture shifted from one in which people thought that wealthy people ought to support the society that made their wealth possible, to one in which people hope to get rich enough to worry about inheritance taxes, and thus take a preemptive dislike to them.

I think that one difference may be that society does less to “make it possible” for people to get wealthy now. A hundred years ago, or even fifty, the politics of inheritance taxes were different. But then the government mostly defended the country and engaged in various public-good activities, like building roads or supporting research. There was pork, and income transfer, of course, but it was a much smaller part of the picture. So the notion that one was “giving back” to a system that made wealth possible made some sense.

Now much of the government’s taxing-and-spending is about transferring money from one group to another. The “give back” point is much weaker, because the system isn’t about public goods, but about payouts that are (usually) driven by interest-group politics rather than the common good. So the moral claim for inheritance taxes would seem to be a lot weaker, and maybe it’s no surprise that many people see it that way.

On the other hand, as the book also looks at political tactics, let me suggest that “fuck the small businessman” is a poor slogan for those favoring inheritance taxes.

PUBLIUS has news from Ukraine.

ANN ALTHOUSE is photoblogging a campus protest, and has a followup post here, noting protester-sympathy for the Iraqi resistance. But of course!

Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit has a photoblogs a different protest on a different campus, with a followup post here. A protester eats an apple.

IN THE MAIL: An advance copy of the Enron documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. It’s not bad, though it’s pretty dependent on C-SPAN footage of Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, et al., calling people crooks — and during one discussion of a sham transaction involving Nigerian power barges, we’re shown footage of what looks like a Liquified Natural Gas tanker, which doesn’t inspire confidence.

There’s a definite tinge of political correctness throughout the film, in which the desire to make money is consistently characterized as morally suspect. (Ironic, given that the film was backed by Mark Cuban). Though there’s a passage in which we’re told that California’s partial deregulation of electrical power made no economic sense, Enron seems to get the blame there, too. Explanation of Enron’s business model is weak, and the viewer is left with no clear idea of why so many people thought it could make money. The term “free markets” keeps coming up in pejorative contexts. (One of the anti-free-market interviewees is former TVA executive David Freeman. It’s no surprise that he feels that way.) And interspersing tapes of power-traders talking with footage of people giving victims shocks in the Milgram experiments seems a bit, well, Michael-Mooreish.

I suspect that a lot of people will like the film anyway. But my sense is that even though there’s plenty of blame for Enron here, the film’s consistently anti-capitalist tone will make it less persuasive than it might have been.

UPDATE: Trailer in QuickTime and WMV. Film website here, with a Director’s Statement about “the cruelty of our economic system” and the evil of greed. I think it would have been more interesting to have made this film as less of a conventional morality play.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Andrew Olmsted didn’t think it was as heavy-handed as I did. Though “heavy-handed” isn’t quite what I meant: The slant isn’t overwhelming, just very consistent.

DARFUR UPDATE: Bill Hobbs reports on the Sudanese Ambassador’s reception at Belmont University. He calls it “electric.”

A SPECIAL OFFER FOR THE TROOPS: The email I posted earlier from Major John Tammes, about John Scalzi’s book Old Man’s War, produced this from John Scalzi:

Maj. Tammes’ note about being “hyped up” to read Old Man’s War inspired me to call up Tor Books to see if we could do something special for the service people in Afghanistan and Iraq. I asked, and Tor agreed, to make available a free electronic version of “Old Man’s War” for our folks serving in those countries. I call it the “Over There Special Edition” — it’s an .rtf file, about 570kb, with the entire text of the novel.

To get it, service people in Iraq and Afghanistan should drop me an e-mail at “” and I’ll send them the edition as an attached file. They should be able to tell me their unit/general location so I know they really are in Iraq/Afghanistan. People should know that if I get a whole bunch of people who aren’t in those countries trying to get the text I won’t be able to continue. So please, leave this version to the folks serving our country a half a world away.

I want to take a moment to thank Patrick Nielsen Hayden, my editor at Tor, and Tom Doherty, the Tor publisher, for letting me do this special edition. It’s really something to go to your publishing house and ask permission to do something that might potentially cut into sales and have them some back and say, simply, “That’s a great idea. Do it.” From my perspective I may give up a few dollars in sales, but these folks are giving up a lot more doing their thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is just a small way to say “thanks.”

That’s a very nice thing to do. Bravo for Nielsen Hayden, Tor, Doherty, and Scalzi.

UPDATE: In response to a reader suggestion, Scalzi says to write him from your .mil address for authentication purposes.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I’ve mentioned it before, but reader Mike Powers points out that you can get free e-versions of a lot of books at the Baen Free Library.

MY LOCAL TV STATION, WBIR, has started a pop-culture blog.

TOUR THE INDIAN BLOGOSPHERE: This week’s Blog Mela is up!

THE VILLAGE VOICE has a guide to academic blogs.

UPDATE: Link was bad before. Sorry.

MORE HISTORICAL REVISIONISM: “I don’t recall any prewar speeches about delivering democracy to the Middle East.”

Hmm. Must’ve missed the 2003 State of the Union address, where Bush said:

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. . . .

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to humanity.

Just, you know, correcting the record.

UPDATE: Reader Paul Escalona sends these remarks by President Bush to the U.N. General Assembly from 2002:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they’ve suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

And this Feb. 27, 2003 transcript (a month before the war) from PBS’s Newshour:

MARGARET WARNER: Last night, Pres. Bush laid out his argument that a post-Saddam Iraq could become a flourishing democracy.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause)

MARGARET WARNER: The president further asserted that a democratic Iraq could transform the entire region in a similar way.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.

Don’t these guys realize that we have Google?

Not to mention, apparently, better memories . . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Scott Helgeson writes:

There’s plenty of antiwar articles that dismissed the administration’s arguments about promoting democracy.

From Alternet, Jan. 30, 2003: Link

It’s “bogus” reason #3.

From Counterpunch, Mar. 19, 2003: Link

“…he proclaims that his war against the people of Iraq will bring about something called ‘democracy’ for the struggling peoples of the Middle East.”

From Znet, Oct. 8, 2002:
Link

“In his speech, Bush claimed that he is motivated by a desire to see democracy in Iraq and by the ‘non-negotiable demands of human dignity.'”

This was from a quick search, I’m sure you can find many, many more examples. And yet now there’s a shocking case of amnesia.

So back then the claims were bogus — and now they’re new! As reader Matthew Tanner writes: “Y’know, you gotta laugh (or in your case, go ‘heh’) at these guys. Next: Bush hid his nefarious agenda in plain view! That bastard!”

Wasn’t it Cavour who said that the way to lie to diplomats is to tell the truth, since they will never believe that? I guess it’s not just for diplomats.

Meanwhile, here’s an earlier post by Jon Henke on related issues.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Steve Foley emails:

Bringing democracy to Iraq was also stated as one of the reasons for going to war in the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use military
force against Iraq.
(Link)

“Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;”

In fact, bringing democracy to Iraq has been this nation’s policy since 1998, signed into law by Bill Clinton. And here’s what President Clinton said in
his own speech way back then

(Link):

“The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s
history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. “

Now that’s a really pre-war speech!

MORE: Ian Hamet offers an explanation for the selective memory:

The reason a large block of the country doesn’t recall Bush’s speeches calling for Iraqi liberation is that they simply were not listening. After all, they had already decided that they knew what Bush “really” meant, so they ignored what he said.

Makes sense.

STILL MORE: The Mudville Gazette notes that this revisionism is a case of history being written by the losers, and offers some further correction.

MORE STILL: Reader Chris Breisch makes a telling point: “In case no one remembers, the name of the operation wasn’t ‘Operation Let’s Go Kick Some Butt and Get Some WMD’s,’ it was ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’.”

EDITORS: Don’t just sit there. Hire Howard Lovy.

JOHN MCCAIN VS. THE HOBBITS: No, really.

UPDATE: More on this at Archaeoblog, which has been covering the story for a while.

OIL-FOR-FOOD INDICTMENTS: I suspect that there will be more as UNScam unravels.

The Counterterrorism Blog has more, including links to the indictments themselves.

UPDATE: More here, from Austin Bay. And Roger Simon has a Bolton connection.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Tongsun Park also figured in an earlier scandal.

MORE: A reader who asks anonymity emails:

Now that the MSM can write about an TEXAS based OIL company owned by an AMERICAN, it will be saturation bombing time for them. I work for an MSM company, and I can see the froth beginning to churn.

I wonder if that’s the plan . . . .

STILL MORE: InstaPundit reader Brian Erst predicted the Texas business, and the media response thereto, months ago.

And Tom Maguire has much more background, including a look at indictee David Chalmers.

IN THE MAIL: Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Fight over Taxing Inherited Wealth, by Michael Graetz and Ian Shapiro. I’m a big fan of Mike Graetz’s, and not just because, like me, he’s a big fan of The Rainmakers. I had him for tax when I was in law school, and thought he was a terrific teacher.

EDUWONK is unimpressed with the New York Times’ latest education report: “Ordinarily, when an organization releases a study with the caveat that its sample is ‘not nationally representative’ a national news organization wouldn’t then run a big story on it as somehow indicative of a national trend.”

Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus is busting the AP’s reporting on Ariel Sharon and Iran: “In this case, the credentialed AP writer had to work from a live broadcast, tape, or transcript, the same as any blogger. Unfortunately, the resulting product does not meet blog standards! … But, hey, give the AP a special constitutional privilege. . . .”

UPDATE: I should note that Kaus is relying on Brendan Loy.

HERE’S A LIST of members of Congress with relatives on the payroll. Seems like a bipartisan sport.

MAJOR JOHN TAMMES, InstaPundit’s now-demobilized Afghanistan correspondent, sends this report on his homecoming:

I was gladdened to see you are able to keep up the Afghanistan photo-updates with a new correspondent. You seem to have good luck with us Army Majors, yes?

You and Arthur Chrenkoff remain two of the best sources of “what’s going on” in the ‘stan.

I just wanted to drop you a line letting you know I am back home, demobilized and all that. I did attach a picture of the greeting we got while passing through the Bangor, Maine airport (these folks had been there since 3 AM, when they had greeted a Marine unit coming home – wow).

Everyone here in the western Chicago suburbs has been absolutely magnificent. I have had everyone from my neighbors to my son’s kindergarten teacher come up to me and thank me for what I have done. If nothing else has humbled me over the past 14 months, that sure has. I actually had two Korean War(!) veterans thank me – I could hardly stammer a reply.

I guess this has made me understand the plight of the Vietnam veterans more than I ever thought possible. It has been a bit of a challenge, without going into boring detail, to readjust to home. I cannot fathom how my predecessors who served in Vietnam managed with a much more hostile or at least less friendly reception.

Sincerely,

John Tammes

P.S. Thanks to you, and others, I was all hyped up to read John Scalzi’s “Old Man’s War” when I got back. It was checked out from the library in my town, three bookstores I checked (I like to browse them and pick up a coffee) were out of stock – finally I ordered it online. I am halfway through, and it is really, really good.

Yes, it is. And I’m sure that John Scalzi will be happy to hear that his book is getting good reviews from such a source.

EVAN COYNE MALONEY is documenting peace and tolerance in Manhattan.

EXPANDING THE SECURITY COUNCIL? Manan Ahmed and Jonathan Dresner look at some candidates.

ROBOT REBELLIONS AND TELOMERE EROSION: Oh, my. Scott Burgess, meanwhile, wonders who will fund the fight against our robot overlords?

I, on the other hand, join with Kent Brockman in welcoming them. Embrace the machine!

PATRICK HYNES writes that Americans shouldn’t be rooting for the E.U. to fail.

MORE CHINESE UNREST: “Thousands of people rioted this week in a village in southeastern China, overturning police cars and driving away officers who had tried to stop elderly villagers protesting against pollution from nearby factories. . . . Police officers outside the village were reportedly blocking reporters from entering the scene but local people, reached by telephone, said villagers controlled the riot area.”

LUNCH WITH CLAUDE: More Canadian scandals.

IT’S BLOGGERIFIC! This week’s Carnival of the Vanities is up.

And so is the Carnival of Education. Check it out — you might learn something!

NATIONAL GUARD PHOTOBLOGGING FROM AFGHANISTAN: Cool.