A review of “Australia: The Story of Us”

“It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.”

– “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900,” an act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which helped to establish the “Commonwealth of Australia”

It’s much easier to get English-language documentaries about the histories of English-speaking countries, as you might expect. This, to be sure, is part of why I got this documentary. But that’s not the only reason – I’m also very interested in the history of the British Commonwealth to boot, of which Australia is still a part. Australia also has a fascinating history in its own right. This is a good documentary about it, to be sure, but its style and focus are not really my favorites. Their focus does have its advantages, because they talk about other things besides the traditional focus on “politics and the military.” If you like the history of sports and music, of science and technology, or of business and the private sector, you will probably enjoy this documentary. But if you’d rather hear more about Australian involvement in World War Two than the origins of Australian football, you’d be better off going elsewhere.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Prohibition” (PBS)

“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

“This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.”

– Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1919), later repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933

At the time that I write this, I have watched more than 20 documentaries by Ken Burns. These include some of his better-known films (like “The Civil War,” “Baseball,” and “Jazz”), and lesser-known films like “Huey Long,” “Frank Lloyd Wright,” “The Dust Bowl,” and “The Shakers: Hands to Work, Hearts to God” (one of his earliest films). I am a big fan of many of them, but my reaction to his series about Prohibition was somewhat more mixed. As storytelling goes, the film definitely works, since it tells everything from the story of the two amendments that are relevant to this story, to the gang violence of infamous mobsters like Al Capone (whose story makes for great television). I am also fascinated by the “Jazz Age” that was going on concurrently with Prohibition, so I thus love the soundtrack for this film. (It includes both period recordings, and original jazz pieces from Wynton Marsalis and his group.) But I also found this film somewhat biased, since it ignores much evidence that Prohibition was actually working at this time. The traditional telling of Prohibition is that it “didn't work,” and that making alcohol illegal also increases the amount of “crime” associated with it. Ken Burns' telling is decidedly in this tradition, and comes across as anti-Prohibition propaganda, which is not always objective in its conclusions.

25 additional things about me

A continuation of my first and second “25 things about me” posts.

Actually, Republican presidents DON'T spend more

“[The Congress shall have the power] To borrow money on the credit of the United States … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

Democrats often point to bogus studies claiming that the “Republican presidents spend more” …

I have often criticized the federal government for its continually spendthrift ways. People on both sides are often alarmed at the extent to which our federal deficit spending and national debt are growing. But who is really to blame for this situation? My friends on the left often point fingers at the Republicans, and tell me that “the Republican presidents have historically spent more than the Democrat presidents.” Many of them point to bogus studies that seem to support this argument (often the same studies), with data about “which presidential administrations have spent the most.” These studies point fingers at virtually every Republican president in recent times, but tend to criticize Ronald Reagan in particular, I have noticed. By contrast, they credit the Bill Clinton administration with much lower deficit spending levels, saying that “he is the only recent president who hasn't increased the deficit.”

Ronald Reagan

… but presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country (Congress does)

What's wrong with these studies? For starters, presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country – Congress does. Presidents can only veto the budgets passed by the Congress. The influence of a president is not insignificant, of course, but nor is it the “primary factor,” as these studies erroneously seem to imply it to be. Ronald Reagan faced a Democratic Congress for all of his administration (excepting the first 17 days of it), while Bill Clinton faced a Republican Congress for all but the first two years of his eight-year administration. During the last six years of his administration, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In light of who controls the nation's purse strings in this country, it would thus seem that the blame for this massive deficit spending during the Reagan administration belongs to the Democratic Congress that then controlled the nation's purse strings. By the same logic, it would also seem that the credit for the lower deficit spending during the Clinton administration belongs to the Republican Congress of that time. I could easily cite other examples of presidents who have faced hostile Congresses (there are many), but suffice it to mention just the most prominent two of them for this debate for now. I can provide others upon request, if need be. While presidents obviously play an important role in the budget process, it would seem that their role is somewhat junior to that of the Congress. Congress is the senior partner in this process, and has far more influence over the budget process than any president does.

Bill Clinton