"Eat the Rich"

"You're Racist!" or "How dare you? I'm black!"

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:11:00 -0400

Michael Moynihan precisely captures my own feelings when he wrote:

“Racism is the most powerful and toxic accusation in American discourse, one that derails careers and destroys futures. Yet despite its toxicity it is also the one that requires the least amount of evidence; the racism, we are told, is institutionalized or subterranean, so trust that it’s being divined in good faith”

I had that passage in mind when I spotted this Politico headline: “Ethics Cases Raise Racial Questions”.

I should be careful here, since its entirely possible Wrangle and Waters will be exonerated, but i’ve got my doubts.

There’s a “dual standard, one for most members and one for African-Americans,” said one member of the Congressional Black Caucus, speaking on condition of anonymity.

This isn’t the first time someones wondered aloud about racial disparities in congressional ethics investigations. There have been a number of black congresspersons and Senators investigated, some of which have led to reprimands while others have been dismissed. But the OCE shouldn’t make determinations about its investigative targets on the basis of appearances, that would represent genuine impropriety. Still, some think otherwise:

“House Democrats are paying a price for OCE’s focus on black lawmakers,” added a Democratic insider close to House leaders. “But that doesn’t change the fact that voters are going to see two African-Americans on trial in the House while they see no action against white members with ethical problems.”

Organic Health Care Reform

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:24:00 -0400

Whole Foods Co-Founder and CEO John Mackey has this thoughtful take on health care reform in today’s WSJ. I agreed with nearly every word, though I have some reservations with regard to tort reform.

The benefits of organic food may be in question (here and here), but Mr. Mackey ably defends the advantages of Adams Smith’s “Natural System of Liberty” (free market competition).

Thoughts on Henry Louis Gates and Post-Racial America

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:20:00 -0400

While Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post seems genuinely surprised by the recasting of Henry Louis Gates’ arrest, I was always suspicious of the “bigoted cop” angle. Not because racial discrimination is extinct, but because, for all the hand wringing, no one—even Mr. Gates—sought to substantiate the accusation of racism. What’s to explain, right? White cop, black man, case closed. Despite scant details, the Gates arrest rapidly attained the properties of a “racial watershed,” garnering the attention of the national media and even President Obama.

For most Americans, even encounters with law enforcement that they solicit are tense experiences. From the outset, Mr. Gates’ circumstance provided plenty of reasons to suspect that things might turn out badly. Weary from a trip abroad, locked out of his home, Gates finally manages to break into his house when an officer appears at his door. Gates is exasperated – and the officer is on edge-hand on his weapon, fully prepared to respond to a burglary or worse. This is a powder keg, and well-worn racial narratives may make matters worse.

Whatever else actually transpired, Gates hasn’t disputed reports that he repeatedly insisted the officer was racist during their exchange. Gates went so far as to bad mouth the officer’s mother. Some frustration may be understandable, but I’m inclined to believe that Gates’ sense of race as identity led him to suppose that the officer’s appearance at his home (not to mention his eventual arrest) - was a function of racism.

In John McWhorter’s comments on the Gates affair, he provides an account of his own run-in with law enforcement (the emphasis is my own):

One night at about one in the morning I was walking to a convenience store. I was in jeans, sneakers and a short-sleeved button-down shirt open over a T-shirt. I had a few days’ worth of stubble. I crossed a two-lane street far from the traffic light or crosswalk, and when I saw a car coming at about 25 yards away I broke into a quick trot to get across before it got to where I was.

I hadn’t realized that the car was a police car, and the officer quickly turned on the siren, made a screeching U-turn and pulled up to me on the other side of the street. The window rolled down, revealing a white man who would have been played by Danny Aiello if it had been a movie. “You always cross streets whenever you feel like it like that?” he sneered. “I’m sorry, officer,” I said; “I wasn’t thinking.” “Even in front of a police car?” he growled threateningly. My stomach jumped, and I realized that at that moment, despite being a tenured professor at an elite university, to this man I was a black street thug, a “youth.”

I simply cannot imagine him stopping like this if a white man of the same age in the same clothes with the same stubble had done the exact same thing; he was trawling through a neighborhood which, unfortunately, does sometimes harbor a certain amount of questionable behavior by young black men on that street at that time of night, and to him, the color of my skin rendered me a suspect.

Here McWhorter makes an unsubstantiated leap. While he may not be able to imagine it being otherwise, it’s not obvious that the officers involved in his incident or Gates would have behaved differently had the citizens been of another shade. In which case, we may have arrogant cops, even bad cops, but not necessarily racists cops.

Did Gates’ arresting officer overact? Did Gates? The answer in both cases is almost certainly “yes.” Should Gates have been arrested? Probably not. Was the cop a racist? There is no strong indication that he was (unless of course we learn that he referred to Gates as “That One”).

The President initially chalked the entire affair up to the arresting officer’s stupidity, warning citizens to be mindful of the specter of racial profiling. Obama later apologized for distracting us with his poor choice of words. McWhorter suggest that Gates’ arrest demonstrates how far off post-racial America really is. I fear he may be right, but not for the reasons he supposes.

Calls to thoughtfully discuss race by well-intentioned people have not been lacking. Yet in nearly all cases the presupposition that racial identity is something worth preserving is seldom challenged. America’s prevailing racial paradigm has evolved from slavery and Jim Crow to a diversity fetish myopically obsessed with the color of each person’s skin. We go too far when we incorrectly suppose race is a legitimate mechanism for lumping individuals together. The consequences of this fallacy are far- reaching.

"Change You Can Xerox" - After All

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:42:49 -0400

Upon reading Dana Milbank piece in the Washington Post, I was reminded of this infamous exchange between candidates Obama and Clinton. At the time, Senator Clinton received smattering of boos for her “change you can Xerox” quip - but recent events may just vindicate her.

At Democratic National Committee headquarters yesterday morning, party workers were loading minivans with Xerox boxes, each addressed to a different congressional office. It was a classic campaign canvassing operation — except that the next election is 19 months away. “Supporters of President Obama’s Budget to Hand Deliver 642,000 Pledges Gathered from Around the Country to Capitol Hill,” announced the Democrats’ news release.

—-

“We had one of the big printers downstairs smoking last night,” party spokesman Brad Woodhouse said.

In fact, the canvassing of Obama’s vaunted e-mail list of 13 million people resulted in just 114,000 pledges — a response rate of less than 1 percent. Workers gathered 100,000 more from street canvassing. The DNC got to 642,000 by making three photocopies of each pledge so that each signer’s senators and representative could get one.

No comment necessary.

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:35:36 -0400

No comment necessary.

Stem Cells and Public Funding

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:31:56 -0400

http://www.americasfuture.org/doublethink/2009/03/27/the-folly-of-stem-cell-subsidies/

I’m certainly in full agreement with this.

-k

AIG Executive Resigns - Populists Cheer?

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:46:40 -0400

I’m not at all happy about the the federal governments takeover of AIG. But my initial discontent has intensified since the outbreak of Bonus Mania on Capitol Hill.

This letter in the NY Times touches on many of the reasons why (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th).

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

Not from The Onion.

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:57:00 -0500

Not from The Onion.

Despite the “profound” impact of the economics stimlulus package highlighted here,...

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:57:00 -0500

Despite the “profound” impact of the economics stimlulus package highlighted here, it’s important not to overlook Doug Bandow’s insightful post on Cato@Liberty this morning.

A Brief Message to a Detractor

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:55:00 -0500

A note to repeat commenter Bill:

My ideological bent, while not comprehensively laid out here - is clearly out of step with yours.

This site is not the endorsement of class-based cannibalism that it may initially appear; it’s also not an ode to Aerosmith or Motorhead tunes. Instead it’s written in the same spirit as P. J. O’Rourke’s book of the same title. Stated plainly, my aim is to to defend individual liberty, promote property rights, limited government and free markets. You won’t find any listing of populist demands here.

I won’t whine about wealth disparities or thrust an accusing finger in the face of those that achieve financial success by competing honestly in the marketplace.

-k

Matthew Yglesias - Worse Than Yellow

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:08:00 -0500

Matthew Yglesias here confuses cowardice with pragmatism.

In response to a question about controversial Danish cartoons, he suggests that free speech is “a matter of principle… tied to practicalities.” He’s entitled to his perspective, but its impossible to reconcile such nonsense with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Taken together, they clearly identify freedom of speech as a fundamental component of man’s essential nature.

The Declaration of Independence declares that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Constitution goes further still, specifying that “Congress shall make no law…” —that is, not a single law— “abridging the freedom of speech.”

These provisions do not regard mens’ rights as a matter of conditional permissions granted by a government; they were forceful assertions of innate negative rights that aught be defended by, and from government.

I’m a staunch advocate of free speech. I’m also plenty suspicious of anyone that would not only surrender their own liberties, but also cavalierly dismiss the rights of others in response to threats, real or hypothesized.

Yglesias’s position is not prudence or pragmatism. It’s a contemptible concession of essential liberties.

If, upon reading a particular comic, you feel compelled to don a vest laden with explosives, may I suggest that you first take a very cold shower, and then cancel your subscription to the offending publication. Freedom of speech is a right, but you are not obligated to read or listen to what anyone else has to say.

I can’t begin to understand how subverting liberties in order to satisfy some potentially murderous constituency wouldn’t serve as a clear example of the efficacy of such coercion.

You might wonder how the same progressives that rightfully criticized the Bush administration’s questionable actions throughout its prosecution of the “War on Terrorism” can so easily brush aside rights in this context. Apparently, utilitarian calculations can lead you to some bizarre places.

As for Matthew Yglesias, while I fully support his right to say what he likes, I’d much prefer that he hadn’t written anything at all.

-k

Too Black to Fail?

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:47:00 -0500

I wasn’t at all surprised when I saw the following headline at WSJ.com: “Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions”.

The story reads much as you might expect. Congressman lobby hard to ensure that money from the hastily implemented TARP program is routed to favorite banks. While precise economic criteria for government handouts might be lacking, and the worthiness of the recipient may be in doubt, finding that representative are funneling money to their constituents and favored interest groups is a virtual certainty.

I did however find this gem pertaining to OneUnited Bank in the articles closing paragraphs:

[Rep. Barney] Frank said he didn’t try to interfere with the regulatory process. “We have never told the regulators that they should ease up on them or not order them to do this or that,” he said.

He cites the bank’s status as the state’s only financial institution owned by African-Americans. “We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that’s why I think it was important to try to help them.”

And thus, a new category of distressed enterprises is created.

- k

Defending Sweatshops

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:52:00 -0500

Nicholas Kristof had this excellent op-ed in the New York Times last week. In it Kristof warns the incoming administration against pressing for labor standards reforms in developing countries. In short: sweatshops may not be ideal places to work, but they’re often far better than the relevant employment alternatives.

Assuming reform minded politicians mean well (its possible that many know better, but misrepresent the issue for political gain), they would better serve the for whom they advocate by liberalizing trade and hoping for the creation of even more sweatshops. In the United States, India, and China – competition for labor among sweatshops has inevitably lead to greater employment, improving labor conditions and increasing wages.

-k

Firefox Goes Black- and Its Ridiculous

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:43:29 -0500

http://www.blackbirdhome.com - The encumbrance of black skin has apparently grown so great - that one can no longer use a racially agnostic version of FireFox.

I’ll pass.

-k

Why Stop at 2.5 Million Jobs?

Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:27:00 -0500

On Saturday Decider-Elect Obama shared some of the details of his economic recovery plan. Predictably, it was filled with promises of infrastructure investment, school improvement, green initiatives and even a promises of broadband Internet access for all (apparently to promote access to PornTube - stimulus).

Obama assured viewers that he would avoid the old Washington pitfall of “throwing money at the problem”, stressing his desire to “use your tax dollars in new and smarter ways”. Curiously, this assurance was accompanied by a threat to State governments not spending federal dollars quickly enough.

How much will all of this costs? Well he didn’t mention that - but he indicated that his plan would “save or create 2.5 million jobs”.

There really isn’t much new here. The particular projects hardly matter as much as the fundamental reaility that these programs have to be paid for with tax payer dollars, and unproductive projects dont waste wealth, they destory it.

If i’m wrong about that, why not spend twice as much and create 5 million jobs? Why be stingy when the economy is sputering and you’ve got the magic elixer? Speard the Gummy Berry Juice on thick, and get the economy humming again.

-k

Absolutely wonderful. (HT to TLF)

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:55:49 -0500

Absolutely wonderful. (HT to TLF)

The folks at the Huffingtonpost.com have made much of this...

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:08:00 -0500

The folks at the Huffingtonpost.com have made much of this exchange between George Will and Paul Krugman on “This Week” last Sunday. From their perspective, Krugman, the newly-minted Nobel Laureate gave Will a very public and embarrassing lesson in Great Depression economics. But Succinctly, Krugman is almost entirely wrong.

Will’s account of the great depression is consistent with the work of scholars like Robert Higgs (Regim Uncertinity), Richard K. Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Amity Shlaes. As Vedder and Gallaway put it, “the great depression was very significantly prolonged in both its duration and its magnitude by the impact of new deal programs”. FDR’s schizophrenic economic policy (“bold persistent expirmentation”) sought to artificially raise commodity prices and create jobs by systematically destroyed foodstuffs while thousands starved.

While modern scholarship is doing a great deal to overthrow Great Depression mythology, the persistence of one particular fallacy is extremely disappointing. Will and Krugman both err in their assertion that World War II ended the Great Depression, and Krugman even refers to the conflict as “an enormous public works program”. The fallacious belief that war and natural disaster can actually improve overall economic circumstances has been with us for generations. And while Frédéric Bastiat and Henry Hazlet have both ably refuted it “broken window fallacy”, it persists, zombie like.

There is a very fundamental difference between the productive economic activity that creates wealth – and the sort of activity that destroys human life, decimates essential infrastructure, and robs individuals of their wealth and productive capacity. Hungry people don’t generally eat ammunition or use it for shelter, and it’s certainly challenging to clothe children with the remnants of a home destroyed by a hurricane or flood. Energy invested in waging war, building bombs, or cleaning up after a flood is not wealth creation.

Bon Appetit

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:36:00 -0500

One establishes a blog for a multitude of reasons. If you’re sufficiently narcissistic, its not at all difficult to convince yourself that such an enterprise is worthwhile. With blogging, the barriers to entry are low enough that any chump with thumbs and a dial up connection can participate.

Whether or not anyone visits, I’ll behave as if everyone on the planet is paying close attention. And while I can’t promise that every post will be grammatically correct, I’ll always strive to be honest, fair, intriguing and where appropriate, merciless.

- k