| Bruce Ramsey is
a journalist in Seattle. |
|
The right to lie — Martha Stewart
was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of several procedural
things, one of which was lying to the government. To put a finer point on it, she
was convicted of lying to the government about an act for which charges were
dropped. And that means we must assume she was lying to the government about an
act that was lawful.
What's wrong with that? Why can't the citizen of a free country, not under
oath, lie to a government employee about an act that's lawful? Some things are
none of the government's damn business. I mean, assume you're not under oath.
Some guy from the government comes around and asks you about your stock trading.
You can refuse to talk. You can tell him to get lost. That's okay (at least for
now). But if you tell him, "I don't know anything about that," when you do know,
then you have just committed a federal crime.
A simple Internet search finds the law, and commentary on it. The law is 18
U.S.C. 1001, material misrepresentation to the federal government. The lie must
be "material" — that is, substantial — but it does not have to be in
pursuit of a crime. The law was apparently written in its modern form during the
New Deal (thank you, Franklin!) to be able to prosecute people who falsely
applied for government benefits. Like RICO and the Patriot Act, it has become a
tool for other prosecutions.
The damnedest thing is, the law doesn't apply to the government. Its employees
can lie to you. Like a cop dressed up as a streetwalker, they can trick and
mislead you. You can't lie to them. Think of what that says about the
relationship between citizen and state. — Bruce Ramsey
| Stephen Cox is a
professor of literature at UC-San Diego. |
|
The worst defense is a good offense
— The other day, I saw George Carlin interviewed on one of the
morning shows on Fox News. The interview was about some movie he's in. My
attention was drifting in and out — mainly out — when it was suddenly
arrested by a new topic: the government's attempt to get tough with "dirt" on the
"public airwaves."
Carlin is famous for incorporating his opposition to censorship into his
comedy routines. He is also an intelligent guy. I looked forward to hearing a
strong, logical argument on behalf of liberty, delivered by a popular, articulate
person.
I didn't hear that argument. Instead of delivering it, Carlin illustrated the
characteristic that makes me despair of virtually all the spokesmen for liberty
who get on TV. Instead of talking about liberty, and talking in a persuasive way,
he insisted on talking about other topics, and precisely the topics that would
prevent people from being persuaded.
First he threw away his Republican audience by announcing that demands for
censorship were just so much "red meat" that the right wing was throwing to its
core constituency.
Then he threw away most of the rest of his audience by claiming that religion
is responsible for censorship because religion (all of it, I guess) is opposed to
"the body." So much for all those religious Democrats.
Then, for a grand finale, he threw away the good will of his host, and of
everyone who cares about manners of any kind, by making himself look like an
ungrateful lout who deserved to be censored, if only on grounds of decorum. His
interviewer — a nice young woman who obviously had a commercial break
rushing upon her — tried to shut off Carlin's anti-religious rant, but
Carlin kept talking over her. Finally she said, cheerily, "My religion didn't
teach me that," and indicated that she had to stop the interview.
What did Carlin say? Did he politely apologize for drifting away from his
topic — which, I repeat, was supposed to be liberty, not religion or party
politics? Did he smile and wish his host a kindly adieu?
Certainly not! He imputed a sinister motive to her desire to end his speech.
"You're a right-wing network," he said, "and you don't want to hear this
stuff."
Nice going, George. Why bother to talk to that slimy old network, anyway? All
that's at stake is the liberty you are supposedly trying to advance.
The host made one more try. "Good luck with the movie!" she smiled. Carlin
looked away, obviously too incensed at her rudeness to return a civil
answer.
Score another round for the censors. — Stephen Cox
| Tim Slagle is a
stand-up comic living in Chicago. |
|
Money for Nothin' — I'm not convinced
there really is a trade deficit. I think more American goods are being purchased
than are reported. It's just that they're things that don't show up when these
calculations are made, things like stocks, tourism, movies, or concerts. (One
reason that outsourcing will never destroy the U.S. economy: Have you ever seen a
Japanese rock band that didn't make you laugh?) But if there really is a trade
deficit, it means the world is giving us things like cars, wine, and precious
metals, in exchange for slips of paper with pictures of famous Americans on them,
which we can print ad infinitum for next to nothing. In playground terms,
they are essentially trading us their bicycle for a bunch of baseball cards.
Sounds to me like we have the better side of that deal. — Tim Slagle
| Stephen Browne
is a teacher and freelance writer who has lived in Eastern Europe since
1991. |
|
The train in Spain smacks plainly of the Dane
— After I saw the stunning capitulation of Spain to terrorist
demands before the actual culpability of al Qaeda had been established, I was
about to write something on the subject. But I remembered that Rudyard Kipling
had already written the article for me almost a century ago, pointing out every
lesson to be extracted from the experience.
In the 8th and 9th centuries Viking invaders, called "Danes," raided a
patchwork of small squabbling Saxon kingdoms in the east of Great Britain, seized
their land, and settled in. Growing more and more aggressive with each concession
from the British, the Danes demanded tribute, called the Dane-geld, in exchange
for a promise to leave the local inhabitants alone — with predictable
results.
Kipling, in "The Dane-Geld," was attempting to warn the appeasers of his time
of the certain results of their policy. It is always a
temptation for a young and agile nation, to call upon a neighbor and to say,
"We invaded you last night and we are quite prepared to fight, unless you pay us
cash to go away."
And this is called asking for Dane-geld, and those who have
asked will explain,
That you've only to pay them the Dane-geld, and then
you'll be rid of the Dane.
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy
nation, to puff and look important and to say,
"Though we know we should
defeat you, we have not the time to meet you, we shall therefore pay you cash to
go away."
And this is called paying the Dane-geld, and we've learned this
again and again,
That once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you'll never be
rid of the Dane!
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
for fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay
up or be molested, you will find it better policy to say,
"We never pay
anyone Dane-geld, no matter how trifling the cost.
For the end of that game
is oppression and shame and the nation that plays it is lost!"
Many of my friends have opposed the Iraq war for honest and thoughtful
reasons, and I most certainly hope that free men will always demand good and
sufficient reasons for making a decision as terrible as the decision to go to
war.
But I must ask, does anyone believe that granting such a huge concession to
men who have just killed several hundred of your citizens will cause them to
renounce violence? Or to go away and bother somebody else? They have learned that
they can sway the outcome of an election and cause a shift in government policy
in their favor, by a strategic act of terrorism. Just war, unjust war —
either way this is a terrible precedent to set.
In this case there is no need to argue about it. We shall know the effects of
this for certain — and very soon, I think. — Stephen Browne
| Wendy McElroy is the
author of "The Reasonable Woman." |
|
A time to walk away, and a time to run
— I have a mixed reaction to the Socialist victory in Spain,
which is widely viewed (and accurately so) as a response to the terrible train
bombing at Madrid. I applaud the new leader's resolve to withdraw Spanish troops
from Iraq by the end of June unless the United Nations assumes control of
military operations there. In this, Josß Luís Rodríguez Zapatero
is not only expressing the wishes of the vast majority of Spaniards, he is also
removing Spain from al Qaeda's target list. This has implications for other
nations, such as Italy, Britain, and Australia, where leaders have committed
troops to Iraq despite public opinion, a move that is likely to backlash against
them in upcoming elections. Interestingly, commentators almost unanimously
predicted that a 9/11-style terrorist attack on European soil would cause a surge
of conservatism, as it did in the States. That is, they expected Europeans to
call for blood and rise up in support of the War on Terrorism, including the
occupation of Iraq. The opposite happened. I think commentators underestimated
(and still do underestimate) the depth of international resentment at the
arrogant and unilateral manner in which the United States is redefining the
world. Given that Spain has only 1,300 troops in Iraq, the withdrawal makes
little difference in the strength of operations, but it is a tremendous symbolic
and diplomatic slap in the face for the Bush Administration. I note that there is
a glut of silence from that direction on the Spanish "upset."
Spain is another indication that Europe is shifting toward a pro-socialist,
anti-U.S. consensus. I am anti-Bush, but I am not anti-American. And I cannot
applaud the polarization that is occurring between the U.S. and the rest of the
world. The U.S. has self-created a new Cold War of us-against-everyone, and the
attitude is spilling over from the war to the economy. For example, the hue and
cry against outsourcing jobs. If the world responds in kind, then we are headed
toward borders that are fortresses and barriers to both freedom and prosperity.
My main hope for this not happening resides with individuals acting privately
(for example, with the Internet, which respects no boundary). Thank God for
technology and the power it gives to the individual. — Wendy McElroy
| | | | |
