Illegal Immigration, Lies, Fascism

The federal judge’s gutting of much of the Arizona law on illegal immigration is not the disaster it may appear to be. The federal lawsuit and the courageous governor’s appeal, and other legal actions to follow, I am guessing, will keep the issue before the general public’ eye. It underscores the growing Fascist tendencies of the Obama-led Democratic Party. It keeps pushing actions that are in dramatic violation of the people’s preference.

There will be a price to pay come November.

Speaking of Fascism, as I write, Fox News displays copies of an alleged memo describing an Obama Administration plan to grand amnesty to illegal aliens (more than ten million people) by executive act. President Obama would (would) thus circumvent the messy and unpredictable democratic procedures laid out by our constitution. Even if it’s only a maneuver to force Republican Congress-people to the table, it’s a Fascist maneuver, not a normal procedural ploy.

I am guessing the President is running scared for the November election. With this grand gesture, he is trying to get 100% of Latino voters to go to the polls, to vote, and to vote for a Democratic candidate. His calculation is wrong. It would not be the first time this administration does something that is stupid from a political standpoint.

Note that I am not referring to Democrats in general as “Fascists.” I think their party has been hijacked by extremists who have little in common with the historical Democratic Party. I am betting that many rank-and-file Democrats are beginning to discover what they have wrought. I think many will stay home in November and even that others will reverse their ill-guided vote of one and half year ago.

Incidentally, I am not using the word “Fascist” lightly, or as a mere term of hate. I use it in a cool, descriptive way. See my essay on Fascism. See my posting “ Fascism Explained” from 6’13/09.

Liberals are still lying, dissembling and ignoring disturbing questions on the Arizona law. Heard on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” at 12:50 Friday 7/29/10 : A caller says that he is confused about one specific point. He asks for help from the NPR panel. The issue is that he, the caller, thinks most states require that people stopped by the police produce a valid ID. Why shouldn’t Arizona asks the same of anyone, he asks. (I don’t know whether the caller’s impression is factually correct.) The panel moderator asks around. None of her experts knows the answer. The question gets swept off. Minutes later, a producer announces that there is no national (federal) requirement to produce an ID.

Not the question, producer, panel! Are you that hypocritical or are you dumb? Honestly, I don’t know what’s the answer.

Liberal commentators continue to refer to their objections to the Arizona law as based on their certainty that it would (will) promote racial profiling. Racial profiling is illegal, in general, and specifically in the Arizona law. The practice exposes law enforcement personnel and entities to big penalties and lots of headaches. If you believe that’s not enough to prevent the practice, keep this in mind: In our constitutional system of government, we take legal action to stop illegal behavior, not to prevent illegal behavior that is wholly in your imagination. Another nicety liberals don’t get. Here again, I am unable to determine what is dishonesty and what is stupidity. The liberals I know personally are more likely to be dishonest than stupid but they not be a good sample.

By the way, I have said nearly everything I wanted to say on illegal immigration in a co-authored article published last summer in the libertarian Independent Review. Follow this link: “If Mexicans and Americans Could Cross the Border Freely.” It’s on my home page and on the first page of every posting. You might be surprised.

Disclosure 1: I am an immigrant. I was an illegal immigrant for a while. I believe that its history of immigration is a big component of this country’s greatness. I write about this often.

Disclosure 2: My wife of thirty years and my adopted children are “people of color,” to use the ignorant, racist vocabulary of silly liberals. I, on the the other hand, am a white man. Of course, I oppress them as much as I can. There ought to be a law!

Dignity and Common Sense; Munificence in the Midst of Penury

The President is appearing on “The View” tomorrow. Don’t miss it! It’s a chat television daytime show with five or six overweight and/or wilted women (and one fox who happens to be the token conservative. Don’t blame me.) The women spend about an hour talking seriously about insignificant things and gossiping about a few significant issues. I don’t knock the show. Today, I learned a couple of useful things from it while exercising at the gym. It was about weaning a toddler of his binkie.

Barack, Barak! You refuse to give ordinary press conferences but you have time to go on a gossip show? You are not a has-been minor actor trying to make it back in Hollywood. You are the elect of the people, for better and for much worse. Where is your dignity?Where is your common sense? Do you have staffers left who can think in ordinary reasonable terms and who have the fortitude to advise you? A shipwreck.

One page apart in my daily newspaper (The Santa Cruz Sentinel) on 7/27/10: a big story on plans to “modernize the state’s oldest park,” and the announcement that Governor Schwarzenegger may leave office without signing a budget bill into law. No one at  this picture-sweet liberal newspaper saw a connection.

The State of California is near bankruptcy; the Governor is holding the line against politicians who want to keep spending. He demands reforms that will ensure less spending in the future of the money the state does not have. Just about a simple as this. The Governor wants the State of California to act like my family: We receive less income, we cut down on expenses. We put two more potatoes in the soup but mostly, we delay unnecessary expenditures as much as as is safe and economical. We may even cut out completely the superfluous. (I won’t tell you what we count as superfluous because some of you would condescend while others would envy us.)

Are we intelligent or what?

The state park that needs “modernization,” Big Basin, is just wonderful as it is. It boasts a visitors’ center in an old-fashioned wooden lodge it’s impossible not to love. State planners want to replace it by something or other. The people in charge of the park complain of traffic jams on some days but they want to offer less rustic accommodations than now exist there! New and different accommodations would either bring more car traffic and or they would be a waste. You chose. Reading the detailed article transports me back to the good old days of the early 2000s, when Californians thought they were rich enough not to think about expenditures.

To finance the modernization, state planners do not count on irresponsible legislators this time but on a popular initiative, Proposition 21, to be voted on in November. According to the reporter writing the article, the proposition offers the “prospect of a windfall of cash.”

Don’t look for the enemy, it is us.

Here is my advice to state planners: Don’t! We can’t afford it right now. We can always do it later if economic conditions improve.

I have advice to  California voters also: Remember to vote no on Prop 21 even if you like every single feature of it. You can’t afford it.

Here is my advice to park supporters in the general public: I like parks too but I think you should stop reaching into my pocket under threat of violence (the State of California) to force me to support your hobbies. I make this request although I approve of your hobby. I think public parks are mostly virtuous endeavors.

Still talking to you, park supporters. I have a constructive suggestion: Why don’t you bypass the state government altogether? Why not organize a voluntary subscription and persuade the state to give the park in trust to a responsible voluntary organization? Then, with the money you will have collected, without any threat of coercion, you will do whatever modernization and other improvements to the park you think are useful. Everyone will approve. You can be sure I will donate a modest amount if you seem responsible and well organized

If the collection does not bring in much money, you will know for sure that you were trying to force me through Proposition 21 to do something I don’t want to do right now. I realize most of you are sweet people and that your dogs love you. Then, why not extirpate the deviously violent, tyrannical oppressor of others from your heart?

Thank you for your attention.

The Oil Spill Disaster-Disaster

No, I am not having a senior moment and repeating my words mindlessly. The title says exactly what I mean.

My skeptical posting of tow months ago ( “The Louisiana Oil Disaster?” 5/21/10 ) seems to find justification in the facts available today. I told you so, I say.

It seems the large Obarmada gathered to clean up the spill is having trouble finding it. It crude oil evaporated, or it sank down to the bottom where bacteria will turn it into fish food. It’s a disaster for the Obama administration when it was about to give one last push to cap-and-trade legislation. The worst happened and it was no big deal!

Now, if you will remember, environmental activists, some environmental experts (few in fact), and the ever-silly, increasingly intellectually impotent mainstream media have been warning us for more than two months. They have been telling us that the scale of the oil disaster demonstrated that there should be no drilling in deep water, or off-shore in general. Isn’t it true, then, following the same logic, that if the oil spill was just a blip, it demonstrates that drilling anywhere in the ocean, deep or shallow, is not much to worry about?

Pay attention to the media in the next few days. See how many even try this simple but inescapable line of reasoning. Dr D is always telling you to watch for what is not happening (but logically should).

Child Hunger in America: Fraud and Gullibility

I listen to National Public Radio frequently because I am a pervert. My prurient curiosity is often rewarded. On 7/19/10, around 4pm (Pacific Time) the lady host of one of the regular shows reminds us that one of President Obama’s many objectives is “to end childhood hunger in America.” I am curious because the whole idea that children don’t have enough to eat in this country makes me suspicious. (Old people, I think that’s possible because of lack of mobility and isolation.) The first words out of the reporter’s mouth are exactly this: “ A package of Kool-Aid costs….”

Would I make this up?

Ms NPR reporter: Kool-Aid is not food; it’s a mild drug. I was raised on tap water and my family was not even really poor. I did become a pervert, as I just confessed, but the water is hardly to blame.

The NPR target family has four members, plus cousins who drop in often for a meal. The oldest daughter, still in high-school, is pregnant. There is no mention of the sperm donor. The family’s name is Williamson. With an English name like this, they came on the Mayflower, or they are old English aristocracy or, take your pick.

The mother is a housewife the reporterette* describes as corpulent. NPR follows this brave woman as she travels hectically from free food pantry to cheap discount outlet in a desperate struggle to put enough food on the table for her family. Toward the end of the show, the reporterette mentions casually that the family receives $600 monthly in food stamps.

I know this is heartless but I had to ask myself the question, and then I asked my wife who does most of the shopping and with whom I raised two children: Could I, could we, feed four people on $150 a week?

The answer is a clear yes, even in pricey, resorty Santa Cruz, even shopping at relatively expensive Safeway, even with a pregnant teen-ager. It would be even easier in an urban area where you can food- shop at Walmart or at Costco. It would not be gourmet food and it could not include much prepared (processed) food. That modest amount of money would make for a healthy and especially for abundant home-cooked fare.

The husband and father, the only one employed in the family, earns $18,000. That’s very little, of course. It probably qualifies the family of four for other government aid, including health coverage and rent assistance. Even if none of this is correct, I doubt his paycheck cannot contribute $25 a week toward food. That would be $1250 per year for extras, maybe even for Kool-Aid.

Something does not ad up in this story. What do these people eat? Fully processed but organic apples obtained through Fair Trade? The liberal reporterette does not bat an eyelash. (I don’t hear it bat on the radio at any rate.) I wonder if she has ever gone shopping for food in a real store, or if she orders out, or if she only eats out.

Why are so many vile stereotypes right on the dot?

Are there really better examples of hungry children in America? Again, I am extremely skeptical but I am educable. Please, help me.

And yet, yes, I think it’s possible that there are children who go hungry periodically in this country. It’s not because of poverty though, it’s because their parents are ignorant, lazy or zonked out of their minds. Something needs to be done on such children’s behalf but the remedies are not the same as if this were Ethiopia or Somalia in war years.

Liberals have to be made to stop pretending this country is “kind of like the Third World, kind of,” even by small implications, even in half-spoken ways. We are surrounded with such pretense. It contributes to a climate of doom that ends up being paralyzing, to the young especially: If the world is all “fucked up,” why try to accomplish anything?

Small commentators like me, even honest people engaged in light conversation, the rank-and-file, must call such liberal and leftist lies- by-implication every time they hear them. I also think they should punish media that perpetrate such mendacity by boycotting them and by saying why at every opportunity. (See my recent column on the agony of the print press posted 7/15/10. It stages the President of a famous university and feces. )

Rational people who think facts matter have been agreeable too long to routine intellectual dishonesty. It’s high time to bitch loudly, every single time. Try it; you will like it.

* I don’t call all women journalists “reporterette.” In fact, the press person I admire most is Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal. I also admire Peggy Noonan although I sometimes disagree vigorously with her viewpoint. The NPR reporter, though is a silly goose. She deserves the name. And I will be called a “sexist.” Who give a f…!

Press Freedom: President of Columbia University Full of Caca

The president of Columbia University, a Dr Bollinger, has a big piece in the WSJ of 7/14/10 entitled: “Journalism Needs Government Help.” It was just like this; I am not making this up.

I read it attentively, looking for a sign that the piece was tongue-in-cheek. It wasn’t. The man is dead serious. He does not seem very smart. For one thing, he does not know English well. He does not understand what the verb “to decimate” means. His article begins with the words, “ We have entered a momentous period….” No shit, as if there were others!

The president makes all the familiar liberal arguments to the effect that when something does not work, the government should take it over and support it so it can continue not working. In this case, though the president is not talking about a single company, such as GM, but about hundreds of companies. His band of reference is a slew of newspaper companies that have proven, are proving over and over again, that the paying public desires less and less what they peddle. After all, a daily newspaper is until now one of the cheapest deals around. It’s still cheaper than a cup of mediocre coffee, in most places. Of course, retail prices would be higher if the newspapers were not also supported by advertisers. Dr Bollinger: People don’t want to spend 75 cents, or a dollar for what newspaper organizations put out. Advertisers have no confidence either.

Why would I pay with my tax dollars for an option for my neighbors that my neighbors don’t want?

In a half-page article, Dr Bollinger, the university president, fails to do what all scholars are trained to do: Look for exceptions to his broad generalizations. Yes, the printed press is generally in trouble all over America, but not all of it. It turns out, that the Wall Street Journal does not have the chronic financial problems of its main rival, the New York Times. No one at the WSJ is asking for a government hand-out. It turns out, for an other example, that the libertarian-conservative Weekly Standard is flourishing while another weekly, Newsweek, is bankrupt. Are those facts irrelevant, Dr Bollinger or is it possible you are not even aware of them?

Dr Bollinger has the common decency to address the idea that federal government financial support of the press raises severe First Amendment issues. Can the freedom of the press the First Amendment guarantees survive a situation where journalists get their paycheck from President Obama, or from President Palin, for that matter? To my huge surprise, Dr Bollinger answers in the affirmative.

No problem, he says, look at previous examples such as the undeniably useful Voice of America (a small government networks broadcasting overseas that liberals have done their best to eviscerate). Here, the President of Columbia University commits a big error that this former teacher would have roundly condemned if it had come from a college sophomore. Yet, it’s a mistake that’s not surprising emanating from an adult liberal because these people have not thought anything new for years. They operate from dogma alone.

Here is the mistake: Dr Bollinger confuses the need of ordinary Americans to be informed, with the American government’s need to inform some categories of people, including foreigners. The president does not understand the difference between free information, which has to be varied and, of necessity chaotic, and orderly government propaganda (again, of the kind I approve in the examples he choses ). Dr Bollinger is a dunce, a dangerous one because of the position he occupies! Pass it on.

I am wondering whether the Wall Street journal did not publish Dr Bollinger’s demonstration of gross ignorance out of sheer viciousness, to expose this kind of non-thinking to the cruel lights of a good periodical.

Dr Bollinger: Much of the printed press is dying because it deserves to die. It had failed to adapt to new circumstances such as the Internet – which have not been really new for more than ten years, by the way. It’s a dinosaur. It’s not even an honest dinosaur. It dishes out boring propaganda at intervals that are not even regular. Occasionally, the best of its numbers engages in outright and persistent fraud. (If this sounds extremist, look up “New York Times – Jason Blair.”) I don’t want to pay for my neighbors’ fantasy life, if I have such neighbors. I probably don’t have such neighbors. Most people are like me: They get their news from sources they trust including some they are happy to pay for. (I spend about ½ of 1% of my moderate net income on information providers of all kinds. I could easily do with less but it’s money well spent.)

Many journalists will become unemployed, it’s true. So are many other Americans unemployed. Some of the unemployed will start their own media ventures. They will be more honest than the current tottering giants. Others will no doubt join the ranks of government employees since the federal government is the only creator of jobs right now. At least, as direct government bureaucrats they will be rendered comparatively impotent, unable to do as much harm as they would as government-supported so-called “journalists.” You can hire a few of the remainder to teach Journalism at Columbia University’s vaunted school of journalism. As a former colleague, I advise you that the school could create a few new courses, such as: “Dead Journalism,” and “The Print Press: The Passing of an Empire.” Also, read this blog it’s more informative than many still-existing newspapers. I am not bragging; the standards are really low.

The Silence of the Wolves ? (Much updated)

Here is a brief Facebook and e-mail exchange I had recently with a young Muslim. I hope it speaks for itself but still, I can’t kill the professor in me, try as I might so, I will explain nevertheless.

13/7/10

This is a big update from an earlier posting. I apologize for the poor layout of the update below. I am too ignorant to fix it.

Anonymous Muslim #1 (“AM1”) is a young Muslim born in France, from West African parents, I am pretty sure (90% sure). He lives in California. I have never met him. I just know that he is easily bi-lingual. I can surmise a little more about him from his picture on Facebook and from the person who is probably our common Facebook “friend,” Anonymous Muslim #2 (AM2). I know AM2 well. She is an immigrant from West Africa with superior intellectual endowments and a rare energy level. She is a very well-educated young Muslim woman. She writes with ease in both English and French. She frequently uses a third language, an African language that is probably her native tongue. There is little not to like about AM2. AM1′s picture on Facebook shows a determinedly middle-class mien and an intelligent face. I can see how AM1 and AM2 belong in the same social and mental world, superiors worlds both.

Why am I telling you all this? Because I don’t want you to think I pick on kindergartners.

On 7/7/10, AM1 posts a link to a small video on Facebook. It’s dedicated to a sally by comedian John Stewart. (His show puzzles me. I have never, never heard belly-laughs in his audience. All I hear is superior snickering.) Here is AM1′s Facebook message.

AM1 : Christians don’t want mosques popping up all over America because it’s competition. Airdate – 07/07/2010

I am a dedicated social scientist (now of the “pop” variety). Facebook is a useful venue for small, inexpensive experiments. My heart half filled with curiosity, half with mischief, I send AM1 a message:

JD : Many American Christians, and others like me who are religiously indifferent, don’t want a mosque at the site of 9/11. That’s because blood-thirsty morons who proclaimed they were Muslims murdered nearly three thousand people there – including some Muslims. It’s also because Muslims who are not morons did not make enough noise on that occasion and they still don’t. A week ago, Muslims killed dozens of Muslims in Pakistan by fire-bombing their mosque during prayer. Where were the Facebook comments then? What did the great comedian have to say about this?

AM1 : “okay…so your saying do not built mosque? I don’t see why? this is a free country, we’re not in France. ”

The comment about not being in France is a little bit of bitchiness. It’s easy to find on the Net that I was born and raised in France (like AM1 himself). It’s also true that it’s not hard to find that I am not especially pro-France and that I left that country 40 years ago. Below is my very substantive reply to AM1′s response.

JD : Mosques are being built everywhere in America. I was trying to remind you of why there is hostility in many places. In particular, as you may know, there is a request to build a mosque very close to the location of the 9/11 mass murder by terrorists who sure as hell called themselves Muslims. The lack of reaction, or the muted reaction, of people like you to the slaughter of innocent people explains much of the underlying hostility. We are still waiting for the 100,000 Muslims march in Washington to denounce jihadist terrorism here and elsewhere.

The dig about France is silly. It has nothing to do with me. And, by the way, you should know that Muslims keep flocking to France, often at great risk and discomfort to themselves. They are voting with their feet.

Did you hear about the new cabinet ministers of Christian background in Senegal and in Saudi Arabia? OK, I got confused. It’s France that has several Muslim cabinet members!

Why don’t you want this exchange on Facebook where it might be useful to others?

Here is AM1′s email response (not on Facebook) : Jacques, I feel like we going to have agree to disagree, which is why I deleted my response.

I wish you have a good Sunday.

AM1 was given a clear chance by a stranger to denounce terrorism by people who present themselves as his co-religionists, or to correct my mis-apprehension of the facts. He could have done either through the medium of his choice, Facebook. Instead, he chose to break off communications. Why do you think that is?

I have Muslim friends. I have always had Muslim friends. I find much to love in the culture of Islamic societies (as I have stated repeatedly on this blog). The mere fact of friendship matters of course. I am unable to think as I would if I had never had a Muslim friend. Yet, I have never been able to draw one out on the subject of terrorism. I did not succeed more when I treaded more softly than I just did with AM1. I haven’t done any better face-to-face than at a distance.

I think there are circumstances when silence is immoral. This is one.

PS I am letting AM1 know of the existence of this posting out of Internet courtesy. Perhaps, he will correct me or reply in some other way.

H sent this comment by email. I am posting it on her behalf. I have met her, I guarantee she is  a real person.

H commented on your link:

“First let me tell you that I had a similar experience with a French born Algerian a few weeks ago, here, on Facebook, in regards to illegal immigrants. He used the same expression as your interlocutor, “agree to disagree” to terminate all arguments,  choosing to break off discussion after telling me to stop “raving and ranting” (very macho, the guy, whom I happen to know personally) . For what it is worth, I find Muslims and Arabs born in France far more intransigent and far less tolerant and congenial than their counterparts in North Africa, for instance. It is as if some sort of propaganda has instilled a number of hostile sentiments in them. They no longer have the deep roots provided by those born and raised in Africa and it shows in their everyday behavior.

Second:  I am so behind you on the question of mosque building near the 9/11 site, as well as the silence of the Muslim community in America and elsewhere, in general,  about the violence carried on by a number of fundamentalists of their faith….  Not enough outrage. it gives the impression that there is a tacit approval of such acts, i.e. silent agreement?   That is because, unfortunately, the extremist propaganda has long bombarded the streets and the majority of people – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – have become  the victims of such propaganda. “

As often happens with mediocre fishermen, I had baited the hook for a particular kind of fish and I got another kind instead, a bigger one. Here is my exchange with Anonymous Muslim #3 (AM3) who inserted himself in my Facebook exchange with AM1.  I don’t know anything about him except what I reproduce below.

AM3     We are all human beings, our blood is red, and our normals are all the same. Peace begins within each of us. Let us hope that one religion does not assume that it speaks for all. The intention of religion is to instill sensibility and oneness amongst all people in the name of Love and Understanding. All religions have extremists. Take a look at what happened to Native Americans on this land in the name of Christianity. How do you think they feel about having us on their land ? Understanding comes from within each of us. Indeed we are all different, thank god we are all different. Christianity is only 2000 years old, other religions have been here a lot longer

AM3 to AM1 My brother, you are an honorable man who has learnt many things in this life. I have always respected you and will contiinue to do so as I know that you are a man of genuine character and good will. Peace be with you brother. Some people profess to know it all and do not open their ears to listen to others.

JD to AM3.     I am glad someone takes the trouble to respond. It’s honorable. First a historical point:  If “this land” means the United States, not much happened to the Indians ” in the name of Christianity,” as you say. They were simply robbed of their ancestral property. Hardly anyone tried to put a religious face on the multiple acts of robbery nor on the massacres and other atrocities that accompanied the robberies. Yours is an exceedingly interesting mi-perception of simple historical facts.

If “this land” means the Spanish Empire, you are right, of course.

I am just continually perplexed by the deafening silence of Muslims who feel about religion what you profess, with respect to the numerous atrocities perpetrated right now (not one thousand years ago, like the Crusades) by savages who say they are Muslims. As I told AM1, it would help to have once a 100,000 Muslims march in Washington to protest terrorism; even 10,000 would do fine. Barring this, I would expect the occasional comment on Facebook rather than the constant whining about rare, minor acts of hostility against Muslims. Remember: After 9/11, not a single Muslim was murdered in America as an act of revenge. I keep wondering what would have happened if thousands had been slaughtered by activist Christians in Saudi Arabia, in Muslim West Africa, in Pakistan. (Or by terrorists who claimed to be Christians acting in the name of their religion.) Incidentally, this is not a rhetorical question, just a question. And why do you think there are presently no such “activist Christians” with blood on their minds. And why are there not terrorists of any kind who claim they are acting in the name of Christianity?
You seem a thoughtful person. Take your time.

JD to AM3, in reference to the “ears” in AM3 ‘s message to AM1     Here I go, interjecting myself again: I, for one, am opening my ears. I am practically begging. I don’t hear anything because nothing is said.

AM3 to JD    Because you are too busy telling your tale. Look around you and tell me how many churches you see ! ! ! Do you believe that they were here before the “Pilgrims” arrived ? God is a philosophy of “Goodness”. That inherent goodness that lies within each of us. “God” in Greek means “Goodness”. Tribal people understand that the Universe is One. Can you explain who the Pagans and Saxons were ? Do you understand how destructive “Industrialization” has been in the scope of the bigger picture.

AM3 to JD Christianity is one of the most destructive religions on the planet. Tell me why Preachers sleep with little boys ! ! !, and then are protected by the Church ! ! !

AM1 to JD :   I think we should all do more for peace, I am sorry this Jon Stewart posting offended you. [Then, AM1 suggests we have a drink sometimes, obviously a gesture of peace. I, JD, erased the relevant sentence by mistake.]

JD to AM3 : You are not paying attention in a way that is quite interesting. There were no Christian churches before the Pilgrims, of course.

JD to AM1 [same message]]  I would like to buy you a drink, either orangeade or my very old Calvados but that does not answer my questions. I am putting up my posting right now.

AM1 to JD well thank you, I look forward to it.

Then, AM3 sent a message obviously addressed to me which subsequently disappeared from the relevant Facebook. You can guess what the disappeared message said from my response. It’s fun!

JD to AM3    “Theo” does not mean “goodness.” The ancient Greeks were pagans. So were the Saxons, a Germanic people, parts of which moved to England. Later, they adopted Christianity. Industrialization reduced infant mortality by approximately half originally, by 9/10 later. Christians used to murder and massacre for religious reasons. They stopped almost .completely toward 1690. That’s more then 300 years ago that reason prevailed. Do you think reason has prevailed yet in Dar-Al Islam? Or was it always there? I am curious about where you learn your history. I mean this exactly, no tricks.

Then, AM3 sent the reply to me (!) about “preachers” “sleeping with little boys. that I answer below:

JD to MS3:  Catholic priests have been guilty of widespread sexual abuse of children. What’s worse, the church itself has protected them to a large extent. May of those people, including bishops, belong in prison for many years, some for the rest of their lives. I wrote a piece about this on my blog. (factsmatter.wordpress.com) What does this atrocity have to do with my questions about Muslims? What does it have to do with me? (I swear I have never molested a little boy!) Your mind works in interesting ways.

My exchange with AM3 (partly retracted by someone) suggests the following:

1    AM# has difficulty grasping the idea that people who are Christians might wage war and make conquests for reasons unrelated to religion, simple greed, for example.

2   AM3 keeps addressing me as if I were a spokesperson for Christianity, in spite of my responses to his anti-Christian messages and  although it’s easy to find on Facebook that I describe myself as religiously indifferent.

It  seems to me that MS3 sees the world in terms that prepare him for jihad  (the big jihad, not the little one against one’s own bad habits).

There was a further exchange, quickly erased, where AM3  declared Buddha to be a prophet. I warned him that he could be beheaded for such statement, in some countries. I challenged him to say which countries.  AM3 dropped off at that point.

Of course, anyone is welcome to comment on this blog, without fear of censorship. I would like nothing better than” big fish” AM3 to come back and tell me off. I am pretty sure he won’t.

Growth of Government Impoverishes You: Striking Evidence from Research

Growth of Government Impoverishes You: Striking Evidence from Research

Conservatives in both major parties feel an instinctive distaste for large government. It’s contrary to our constitutional tradition for one thing. For another, one does not enjoy paying taxes to a government that gives daily lessons in ineffectualness and in jolly and mild but massive corruption. (The late Democrat Senator Byrd – the repentant Klansman – was eulogized for giving away your money to his poor state of West Virginia. Much of it was spent on nothing, such as an empty highway.)

There is another reason to dislike big government that is at once more tangible, or more concrete, and more difficult to explain. It’s difficult to explain because the evidence for it comes from studies with methods few people understand. I understand those methods (roughly: “regression analysis”). I used them for thirty years of my professional life. I vouch for them.

Here is the third reason to object to big government:

Government expansion deprives us of economic growth.

Note: If you are uncomfortable with the terms GDP/capita and income per capita, don’t blame yourself. Sue your alma mater and refer to the light-hearted explanation linked to this blog: “Dr J’s List of Words that Make you Sound Smart.” (Link is on the lower right-hand side of blog front page.)

Two Swedish scholars, economists, recently gave in the Wall Street Journal (7/12/10) – a summary of their book on the topic. I quote:

“…when government spending increases by 10% points of GDP, the annual growth rate [of the national economy] drops by 0.5 to 1 percentage point. This may not sound like much but ….To put it in personal terms ….a dip …from 2% to 3% [in national economic growth] would mean an individual income loss of $464 in the first year. Over 30years, a one percentage point difference in the [annual] growth rate of the national economy] translates roughly to $354.000 in lost income per person.”

The suspension points above are mine. They indicate simplified sentences. The bracket are mine too. They denote clarifications I added. You don’t have to worry about either. I understand the WSJ report perfectly and I never lie or distort.

Here is another way to express the same thing:

If the federal government takes 45% of everything produced by all Americans rather than the current 35% (roughly), it will cost the average American couple the price of two or more houses, depending on the part of the country they live in.

This is not peanuts. This is not erosion at the margin. It’s a whole lifestyle and our capacity for personal autonomy that are at stake.

Such an increase in the share the federal government takes for itself is not out of the question. The Swedish government’s share is about 55%.

Now think of the implications of this robbed economic growth from the standpoint of “social justice,” the excuse liberals give for their dishonest economic policies. The above estimate is a mean, an average. Of course, the rich lose more than the poor in absolute terms when the economy fails to grow. They might be deprived of a new mansion, for example. (I am thinking of Al Gore’s mansions.) The poor lose the ability to buy a home altogether. Who, in your opinion, suffers the most when the economy grows slowly: A rich man who can’t afford a second mansion at the beach or a working family reduced to renting forever?

Of course, the answer is subjective. It does not mean you can’t try. Force your liberal acquaintances to answer. It’s fun to see them squirm, get red in the face, stomp out, or look at you dumbly. (Happens more and more these days, or am I just dreaming?)

The facts for this column are cribbed from: “Lessons from the Swedish Welfare State.” by Swedish scholars Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson, based on their book: Government Size and Implications for Economic Growth. (AEI Press, 2010)

Facts Matter: Irrationality Among the Sane, the Intelligent, the Well-Educated

I have been engaged in an incessant informal study of the irrationality of otherwise sane, intelligent, well-educated people. Obviously, the question of why the insane are sometimes irrational is not riveting. Less obviously, it’s possible to think of irrationality in the unlettered as a substitute for real knowledge. (Say belief in the virtues of tea made from the penis bone of tigers instead of Viagra.) When the sane intelligent, well-educated talk or act irrational, there is a puzzle worth solving.

Since I left academia, I have stopped being the rigorous sociologist that I used to be. “Rigorous” in this context means using reliable tests to determine the relationship – if any – between ideas and facts. In this sentence, “reliable tests” means “well-tested tests.” Tests who are known to give results you can trust almost all the time. The tests that the social sciences use have not lost any credibility in my eyes. There is zero rejection involved in my shift of interests. Thus, if there is appears to be a difference in incomes between the criminal and the law-abiding and if it’s not statistically significant, I still believe one should assume that difference in incomes has no effect on criminality. (“Poverty does not cause crime.”)

I have simply shifted my interest to issues that are interesting but that the social sciences seldom address. One of the reasons is that some interesting questions seem to not lend themselves to rigorous testing, precisely. (There are other reasons I will address if someone asks.) So, I am searching for hypotheses and immediately assessing their plausibility. Plausibility is now my central criterion of judgment. Correspondingly, I am careful not to affirm. My quest for an understanding of the irrationality of the usually rational is a part of this endeavor. In this context, I am using, exploiting shamelessly several young people I know well. They are superior specimens of the human race from the standpoint of intelligence, interest in ideas and propensity for hard work. I am not picking on the feeble-minded!

One young man with whom I have frequent conversation has appeared several times on this blog, always anonymously, of course. I have described him before as all the above plus intellectually honest. He is also a moderate liberal, not an extremist in any way. One day recently, we were talking about farmers’ market which have become de rigueur in my part of California. Of course, it’s not enough here to enjoy shopping outdoors, there has to be ideological reasons for doing so. There are two main reasons. First, farmers’ markets are supposed to be selling “organic” foodstuff. Whether they do, whether they do any more than Safeway for example, what’s “organic” in the first place, are questions I don’t wish to address here. The second ideological justification for shopping at farmers’ markets is more interesting; it’s the “Buy local” theme. Interestingly, this general theme is embraced by people who are otherwise conservatives in addition to the expected green liberal-everythings.

My friend has the grace to understand that the buy-local injunction does not conform with economic theory. Other things being equal, including taste, freshness, etc, prices alone are supposed to tell you whether you buy a lettuce head grown one mile away or in southern Mexico. My friend does not squarely disagree with this basic notion. Instead, he argues that there are social costs of transportation that are not incorporated in prices (They are “externalized.”) One family of such costs is atmospheric pollution, of course.

When he tried to defend the high costs associated with farmers’ markets retail prices, my friend made two arguments. Both are indicative of something I am trying to put my finger on and that is connected with the irrationality of the sane and well informed.

First, my friend said, I am concerned about the CFC compound emitted while transporting foodstuff over long distances, and their effect on the ozone layer.

Second, he declared his concern about human exposure to pesticides. Presumably, this was based on the unverified belief that foodstuffs transported over long distances are more likely to be produced with the help of noxious pesticides than local farmers rely on. This is in itself an interesting conflating of distance transport and farming practice but I don’t want to digress too much.

The response concerning CFCs and the ozone layer floored me so much I began to suspect there were some new news on this front that had eluded me. Incidentally, I have no ground to doubt that CFCs have a destructive effect on the ozone layer and thence, a noxious effect on human and other animal life. I went back to the sources I thought I knew well and quickly re-assured myself that I was not having another senior moment.

The 1987 Montreal protocol, re-enforced in 1990 according to Wikepedia, phased out most of the world-wide production of CFCs. The 8^th entry from the top on CFCs and ozone on Google (consulted 7/8/10) is a Congressional testimony dating back to 1996. The seven higher entires don’t seem to show any new factual information. None of the ten entries I perused – obviously stretching over more than a decade, see above – mentioned CFCs in connection with transportation. Either, burning gasoline and diesel does not produce CFCs or it does so in insignificant quantities.

My friend’s preference for farmers’ markets is thus based in part on information that began to become obsolete about the time he was born.

My friend’s second type of arguments in favor of patronizing farmers’ markets seems to me to be basically legitimate: human exposure to pesticides. Some pesticides are known to be dangerous for some humans. It would not be difficult to convince me that others pesticides are not understood well enough to get an unconditional pass.

Just to know what he meant, I asked him if his concern was for the whole population of for the small fraction that may be intensely exposed to dangerous pesticides. (Full disclosure; I think both categories of concerns are morally valid. I wanted to know which was which because they may may lend themselves to divergent remedies.) I asked specifically if he was worried about the 100% of the population who eat food or with the “fewer than 3%” who work in agriculture.

He replied that he was mostly worried agricultural workers, “who are much more than 3% of the population.” I could not resist; I am a real bastard. I made a bet with him there and then. Then he had to go to work while I was rushing home to earn my bet money.

It turns out, I was way over the mark. About 1.6% of the labor force is in agriculture. Of course, that’s an even much smaller % of the population, the subject of our bet. Supposing about half of the population is active, that would make the % in agriculture 8/10 of 1%. I wanted to know more. When my friend honestly reached out for his wallet to pay off his gambling debt, I told him I would reduce it by half under one condition. The condition was that he had to divulge what percentage of the population he would have bet on actually worked in agriculture. “10%.” he said. So, what was going on in his mind while he explained why he favored farmers’ markets was off by a factor of ten. That’s like confusing one hundred dollars with one thousand, one thousand with one hundred thousand!

So, here we go: If your beliefs are grossly out of whack with simple, verifiable reality, you will appear irrational even if your logic is perfect.

Here is what I think I learned from this micro pop-sociological study, subject to confirmation. First, bad news have a long shelf life for these generations. In fact, bad news transcend generations. Good news don’t register. The fact that a bad situation was remedied while you are still in diapers does not make it any the less a bad situation? I think I am on to something here. What do you think?

Second, I was reminded again, four years after retiring from teaching, how young people don’t seem equipped to garner facts casually and effortlessly as I think I did all my life. It may be a paradoxical effect of the ease of access to information the Internet gives us. Getting a fact has become ridiculously easy as compared to the old days (mine) when you had to transport yourself to the library, identify one or more trustworthy sources, record the data, and store them somewhere in your brain. I am guilty myself of having preached the new gospel that facts are so easy to obtain, you should spend little energy storing them. I was wrong. There is a minimum of factual information you need to have stored permanently in mind if your judgments are not going to be grievously faulty.

There is another explanation. Throughout my life, I garnered much information from reading casually, in a hap-hazard manner. There is information in the Wall Street Journal, in learned historical treatises but also in cheap novels and on cereal boxes. If you read little, you will catch little of it. This explanation leaves wide open an important question: Why don’t young liberals gather information from the visual media on which they rely more or less in the same casual manner I utilized readings.

I am doubly puzzled by the fact that my sadly mistaken friend is not one of the intellectually foo-foo “youths of today.” He is intellectually curious, as his choice of college major attests. He does not major in some supposedly practical subject (like the hapless undergraduates to whom I used to teach “Management;” many of whom thought that a management major would propel them directly into management positions!) He is a Philosophy major, a choice I respect much. I am perplexed. Someone please help me!

Two disclaimers to finish: First, I am a conservative; I believe your money is your money. I don’t care if you spend it at farmers’ markets. Some good will probably come out of the social experiment that is farmers’ markets although not cleaner air or freedom from pesticides. I don’t know what good but I am confident of the general fruitfulness of out-of-the-box experiments. Second, I think even tiny groups should be protected from danger, even if they make up a minuscule fraction of the population. I don’t think government regulation is the way to go though. I think insurance and the threat of massive punitive awards to victims are.

President Obama’s Domestic Triumphs on the Eve of Independence Day

A couple of days ago, I summed up the Obama administration’s foreign policy for you (6/30/10 “Obama’s Wars – and Not Wars”). That was the bright side. This is still a sunny summer. I am as lazy as the next guy but I am retired so, I have decided it’s my duty to sum up everything you need to know about President Obama’s domestic policies thus far. It won’t take long. Stop reading right here if you are hoping for good news.

It’s true that the President inherited a massive financial crisis that turned into a recession (economic shrinkage) plus steep job loss. Personally, he had nothing to do with it. His party created it though. As far as we can tell right now, the crisis of the fall 1908 is entirely traceable to his party’s insistence that people without verifiable income and no collaterals should be given mortgages. From what we know, at this point, again, this is it. I mean that had banks been allowed to act according to their traditional prudence, there would have been no crisis. Again, we may learn later that the causes of the crisis are more complicated but, right now, there is no rival explanation anywhere, not with the Democratic Party, not from left-wing economist Paul Krugman.

There were two broad ways to try to re-start the economic engine of this nation. One was to cut taxes. (Has to be done for a long time otherwise, taxpayers don’t respond). That’s the conservative way The other, the Keynesian response, consists in engaging in swift government spending, again, to stimulate the remainder of the economy. Personally, I think the evidence in support of the appropriateness of the Keynesian response is slim. My judgment may not matter much because what the Administration did is not a Keynesian response which is supposed to be a brief, temporary remedy. It’s supposed be be followed in short order by super growth in the general economy and shortly thereafter in growth creation by the private sector. Economic growth has been anemic as compared to the aftermath of all previous recessions. That’s true whether those were given government spending remedies or not.

The last quarter, the economy grew at 2.7%. That would be kind of OK in normal times. In fact, in normal times, France or Germany would kill for such a rate. It’s not good enough for better-than- normal times; it’s nor nearly good enough for a period following a recession. There is more. See below. Net job growth in the private sector has been essentially zero. (“Net job growth” = jobs created – jobs lost during a given period.) But many jobs have been created in the government sectors. Since both states and local governments have been cutting back, it seems to me that nation-wide, job creation has been almost entirely by the federal government. If someone has data that contradict this supposition, I would like to know to correct myself here.

After a year and half of Obama administration, with both houses of Congress submissive to his will, we seem to have plateau-ed to the main economy features of a sleepy European economy. I hope this is just a phase. I hope my pessimism is unfounded. I would love to be shown where I am wrong. If I am right, no, it’s not the end of the world. Europe is not dead, after all. Rather, it’s the beginning of a long period of mediocrity for you and your children.

In the process of not solving the economic crisis, the Obama administration approximately doubled our national debt. A child born today already owes about $45,000. That’s about equivalent to our Gross Domestic Product per capita (the total value of all that Americans produce in one year divided by the number of Americans. It’s a very rough measure of average income. If you want to learn more, activate the link on this blog: “Dr J’s List of Words that Make you Sound Smart.” Otherwise, don’t bitch!) The debt owed by the average newborn is also equivalent to about two years of production of the average American worker. This means the following: If the average child wanted to pay off his share of the national debt before bringing any money home, he would have to work for two years before his first paycheck.

Unlike many conservatives, I am not necessarily against government debt. How tolerant I am depends on two somewhat related considerations. First, I want government borrowing to be linked to greater production or to improved productivity. Roads, harbors, Internet expansion, subsidies for some research and for some of higher education qualify. (The federal government has no business at other levels of education.) Filling the Social Security deficit, expanding government ownership of unproductive productive enterprise (GM), giving away money to the idle and even to the invalid, don’t qualify. Second, as much history shows, including the aftermath of WWII, high government debt is no big deal if government revenue increases naturally. This is not complicated: Roughly if the economy grows at 5. 4% per year instead of 2.7% per year, the government rakes in twice more money without raising taxes.

I am against raising taxes for three reasons. The first is related to what I just said; Raising taxes usually undermines economic growth. This, in turn, makes more of the government debt unsustainable. You don’t have to subscribe to the two others reasons to object on the ground of the first reason alone. Here are those two others reason. Every increase in taxation as a percentage of the total pie, corresponds to an increase in the importance of government relative to citizens and civil society (“Civil society” is that which we do organizationally on our own, without government framework.)  The larger the government’s slice of the pie, the greater the potential for tyranny big and small. My third reason is a purely moral one: Even in a constitutional system such as ours so far, ultimately, taxes are income taken from citizens by government under threat of violence. Legal extortion by one carrying a gun is still extortion.

I could ad a fourth reason but I don’t want to be taken too far afield. Here it is, FYI: By and large, the federal government does a bad job of spending my money. A recent scandal in the newspapers shows that the federal government does not know enough to bury the right body under the right name plate at Arlington National Cemetery. Not much gets as incompetent as this!

When presented with an environmental crisis made to order for this supposedly green administration, it failed monumentally. I am not referring to the gas spill itself. It’s possible to argue that it inherited bad supervisory apparatus from previous administrations (plural). I am talking about the clean-up endeavor. The Obama administration did little that was effective. If it did, the New York Times for example, or MSNBC, would be describing the Obama measures in loving details. After dumping bitterly on President Bush for his alleged passivity after Katrina, Democrats are reduced to looking for excuses for Obama’s much longer-lasting inaction. I said at the time, and I am saying now, that it’s not obvious the federal government should be dealing at all with disasters that are not of a military nature. Here are the differences with the Katrina precedent though: The Gulf oil spill is now an inter-state problem. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been used much more frivolously before to justify federal intervention. Second, the Bush administration never interfered with the application of solutions to the Katrina problems by states, local governments, and private organizations. Evidence accumulates that the Obama administration has interfered massively with such, actively and passively. I mean by “ passively’ such omissions as failing to suspend the Jones Act that prevented us from accepting help from the much experienced Netherlands.

The summary of this summary is this: The Obama administration is a complete domestic failure except in one area: It has vastly expanded the scope of the federal government. If that’s you wanted, you may count yourself a partial winner. If you don’t like this success, you lost, utterly.

Come November, citizens who don’t like an on-going catastrophe have to make sure we gain enough seats to paralyze this government fiscally, to defund it. That would be a moderate response. In 1776, Americans took up guns for much less. Read the second part of the Declaration of Independence. It will make you smile. You will have a hard time finding in it denunciations of abuses worse than what we have been suffering for a year and a half.

In the meantime, here is the first part of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.