Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday, almost as unique as the 4th of July. But there's more to it than simply stuffing yourself full of food, or drinking heavily to make your extended family more bearable.
When it comes right down to it, Thanksgiving is a celebration of man's ability to produce wealth. And, by extension, of the system of living that allows him to do so.
That's right, Thanksgiving is a celebration of capitalism.
We're taught that this holiday is a remembrance of a peaceful union between the early colonists and the Native Americans, but we all know how that turned out in the end. And although the day has become a celebration of family, lots of food, (and football), that's not really what it's about either.
It's about the one common thread between that first Thanksgiving and this one. The thing that makes it all possible.
Capitalism.
Lawrence Reed, from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, explains why:
"Thanksgiving Day is a particularly appropriate time to reflect on the meaning and value of profit. The settlers at Plymouth colony who started the holiday tradition nearly wiped themselves out early on when they set up a communal, socialistic economy. Each person was producing for everybody else and received an equal share of the total production. In the absence of a strong profit motive, the settlers starved until Gov. Bradford altered the arrangement. Thereafter, men and women produced for profit and the result was bountiful harvests with full Thanksgiving tables."
So that takes care of the value of capitalism and profit in the first Thanksgiving, but what about today? When you think about it, only in a capitalist society is a huge annual feast even possible. Reed continues:
"Consider this as you feast at the table today. The people who raised the turkey didn't do so because they wanted to help you out. The others who grew the cranberries and the yams didn't go to the trouble and expense out of some altruistic, charitable impulse. If you think those folks and the others who made almost everything else you own performed their tasks as sacrificial rituals, then you probably believe McDonalds when they say, "We do it all for you."
In Marxist North Korea, they have a regime that works night and day to see that nobody makes a profit or owns a private business. There won't be anything like Thanksgiving dinner in North Korea today, and that's no coincidence.
As for me, you can count on me saying a prayerful thanks for more than just good food today. I'm going to say thanks for the profit motive which made it all possible. When God instilled a measure of productive self-interest into the human mind, he knew what he was doing."
I'm right there with him.
Henry Hazlitt wrote that the most important lesson of economics is to look not only at what is immediately present, but also to see that which is hidden or at least more difficult to see.
The same is true, I would think, of Thanksgiving. We certainly should be thankful for the food, family, friends, etc., but with all those wonderful things right in front of us, we should not forget about that which is not always immediately present to our attention. A capitalist society makes Thanksgiving possible, and I'm thankful for living in one.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Relax, folks.
Remember that census worker who was found, dead, in Kentucky back in September? He was hung, with his hands bound behind him, and the word "Fed" was scrawled across his chest.
Remember how angry a lot of people were because the perpetrator must be some kind of libertarian/anti-government/census-hating/nutjob? Andrew Sullivan went so far as to declare there was no way this was suicide.
Well, it turns out that the perpetrator was actually Bill Sparkman (the 51-year old census taker) himself. Yup, it was a suicide. Apparently, he had an insurance policy that would not pay if he committed suicide, so he tried to make it look like a heinous crime instead. Obviously, this still is a sad story -- a man took his own life -- but at least he was not the victim of an irrational attack against the wrong kind of target.
--
Remember how angry a lot of people were because the perpetrator must be some kind of libertarian/anti-government/census-hating/nutjob? Andrew Sullivan went so far as to declare there was no way this was suicide.
Well, it turns out that the perpetrator was actually Bill Sparkman (the 51-year old census taker) himself. Yup, it was a suicide. Apparently, he had an insurance policy that would not pay if he committed suicide, so he tried to make it look like a heinous crime instead. Obviously, this still is a sad story -- a man took his own life -- but at least he was not the victim of an irrational attack against the wrong kind of target.
--
Labels:
Bill Sparkman,
census taker,
Kentucky,
murder,
suicide.,
U.S. census
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Why I Hate New York: Eminent Domain Edition
Eminent domain, which allows the government to seize private property for public use, is actually allowed in the Constitution (one of many things found in the 5th Amendment).
However, the 5th also makes it very clear that owners must be compensated fairly for their land and property (although I guess its questionable if that's really possible), and that such actions are only acceptable when the land is going to be put to public use, such as the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Unfortunately, eminent domain claims have been increasingly used for corrupt reasons, and to assist private development when people refuse to sell.
That's exactly what the City of New York is planning to do.
Nicole Gelinas of the Wall Street Journal questions the use of eminent domain in Brooklyn to help pave the way for a sports and entertainment complex (known as the "Atlantic Yards" project) in Prospect Heights.
"So to push the Atlantic Yards project through the courts, New York state isn't arguing that it needs to take Mr. Goldstein's property for economic development. Instead, it has declared that Mr. Goldstein's neighborhood is "blighted." This allows the state to condemn property on the theory that clearing unsanitary and unsafe slums constitutes a public benefit.
In fact, the Prospect Heights neighborhood that Mr. Goldstein and his wife have made their home is hardly a slum. Prospect Heights was thriving before Atlantic Yards construction began. It's a hip neighborhood that's a short hop on the subway from Manhattan.
To meet the needs of in-flowing residents, developers had been converting sturdy old warehouses into condos. One of the newer arrivals, Mr. Goldstein, paid $590,000 in 2003 for his three-bedroom condo in a distinctive, eight-story dry-goods warehouse designed by a renowned Chicago architect and solidly built nearly 80 years before. His neighborhood was home, too, to small-scale industrial firms and a still-operating Prohibition-era bar, as well as to working-class renters."
Hmm....that doesn't sound too slummy to me.
So how did Bruce Ratner, the developer, plan to convince the courts that these few city blocks needed to be razed to the ground in order to preserve the public well-being? They hired a consulting firm to cook up a report about how bad the area is, citing mostly weeds and graffiti (oh the horror). They also focused on the "under utilization" of the land, which makes the project an attempt at civic planning, rather than letting the market continue to improve the neighborhood, as it had been doing, driven by the demand for new apartments, like Goldstein's.
Damon Root, of Reason, says nothing good can come from this union of public power and private business:
"Ratner isn't planning to build a bridge or a road or any other legitimate public project that might permit the forceful taking of private property. He wants to build a basketball arena, sell tickets to the games (not to mention sell broadcast rights, advertising space, concessions, and merchandise), and make a big fat profit. That's not public use, it's private gain.
Furthermore, state officials have gone out of their way to put those profits in Ratner's hands. Consider that when the project was officially announced in 2003 there was no mention of blight, which is the state of extreme disrepair frequently cited by the ESDC to trigger an eminent domain taking under state law. Two years later, however, Ratner and the ESDC started claiming that the neighborhood was "blighted." Yet by that point Ratner had already acquired many of the properties he wanted (thanks to eminent domain) and left them empty, thus creating much of the unsightly neglect he now cites in support of his project."
According to Gelinas, Ratner is pretty well aware that his project is not a "public use" under any definition of the term. A few weeks ago, when questioned by a reporter about his specific plans for the location, Ratner replied: "Why should people get to see the plans? This isn't a public project."
Touche, sir. And hopefully the New York Court of Appeals sees it the same way when they rule on this case (Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation) sometime in the next few days. A ruling is expected before Thanksgiving, reports the Bergen (N.J.) Record.
Of course, when you're relying on the government to save you from the government, I'm not sure I'd like your chances, even if the Constitution is on your side.
Here's a trailer for a documentary that is being made about the people living under the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint and their fight against the use of eminent domain.
Brooklyn Mayor Marty Markowitz (do you think they call him "Marty Mark"? I would.) says that this would make Brooklyn "the place to be in America." Sorry, Marty, but those words will never accurately describe Brooklyn. Even if you build a gold-plated arena bigger than the Vatican.
As a final note, I can't help but laugh at the commitment of Ratner to bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn. Right now, the Nets are 0-12. You'd think the city of Brooklyn would be circulating a petition to keep them away.
However, the 5th also makes it very clear that owners must be compensated fairly for their land and property (although I guess its questionable if that's really possible), and that such actions are only acceptable when the land is going to be put to public use, such as the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, etc. Unfortunately, eminent domain claims have been increasingly used for corrupt reasons, and to assist private development when people refuse to sell.
That's exactly what the City of New York is planning to do.
Nicole Gelinas of the Wall Street Journal questions the use of eminent domain in Brooklyn to help pave the way for a sports and entertainment complex (known as the "Atlantic Yards" project) in Prospect Heights.
"So to push the Atlantic Yards project through the courts, New York state isn't arguing that it needs to take Mr. Goldstein's property for economic development. Instead, it has declared that Mr. Goldstein's neighborhood is "blighted." This allows the state to condemn property on the theory that clearing unsanitary and unsafe slums constitutes a public benefit.
In fact, the Prospect Heights neighborhood that Mr. Goldstein and his wife have made their home is hardly a slum. Prospect Heights was thriving before Atlantic Yards construction began. It's a hip neighborhood that's a short hop on the subway from Manhattan.
To meet the needs of in-flowing residents, developers had been converting sturdy old warehouses into condos. One of the newer arrivals, Mr. Goldstein, paid $590,000 in 2003 for his three-bedroom condo in a distinctive, eight-story dry-goods warehouse designed by a renowned Chicago architect and solidly built nearly 80 years before. His neighborhood was home, too, to small-scale industrial firms and a still-operating Prohibition-era bar, as well as to working-class renters."
Hmm....that doesn't sound too slummy to me.
So how did Bruce Ratner, the developer, plan to convince the courts that these few city blocks needed to be razed to the ground in order to preserve the public well-being? They hired a consulting firm to cook up a report about how bad the area is, citing mostly weeds and graffiti (oh the horror). They also focused on the "under utilization" of the land, which makes the project an attempt at civic planning, rather than letting the market continue to improve the neighborhood, as it had been doing, driven by the demand for new apartments, like Goldstein's.
Damon Root, of Reason, says nothing good can come from this union of public power and private business:
"Ratner isn't planning to build a bridge or a road or any other legitimate public project that might permit the forceful taking of private property. He wants to build a basketball arena, sell tickets to the games (not to mention sell broadcast rights, advertising space, concessions, and merchandise), and make a big fat profit. That's not public use, it's private gain.
Furthermore, state officials have gone out of their way to put those profits in Ratner's hands. Consider that when the project was officially announced in 2003 there was no mention of blight, which is the state of extreme disrepair frequently cited by the ESDC to trigger an eminent domain taking under state law. Two years later, however, Ratner and the ESDC started claiming that the neighborhood was "blighted." Yet by that point Ratner had already acquired many of the properties he wanted (thanks to eminent domain) and left them empty, thus creating much of the unsightly neglect he now cites in support of his project."
According to Gelinas, Ratner is pretty well aware that his project is not a "public use" under any definition of the term. A few weeks ago, when questioned by a reporter about his specific plans for the location, Ratner replied: "Why should people get to see the plans? This isn't a public project."
Touche, sir. And hopefully the New York Court of Appeals sees it the same way when they rule on this case (Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation) sometime in the next few days. A ruling is expected before Thanksgiving, reports the Bergen (N.J.) Record.
Of course, when you're relying on the government to save you from the government, I'm not sure I'd like your chances, even if the Constitution is on your side.
Here's a trailer for a documentary that is being made about the people living under the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint and their fight against the use of eminent domain.
Brooklyn Mayor Marty Markowitz (do you think they call him "Marty Mark"? I would.) says that this would make Brooklyn "the place to be in America." Sorry, Marty, but those words will never accurately describe Brooklyn. Even if you build a gold-plated arena bigger than the Vatican.
As a final note, I can't help but laugh at the commitment of Ratner to bring the New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn. Right now, the Nets are 0-12. You'd think the city of Brooklyn would be circulating a petition to keep them away.
Another Example
of why government-funded, monopolized, services are a bad idea. When there is no competition, there is no way to keep prices down, so they tend to shoot up. And in this case, the price that is sky-rocketing is the price of labor.
SEPTA (SouthEast Pennsylvania Transit Authority) recently went on strike (although they kindly waited until after the World Series, despite their initial threats). The union is demanding an increase in wages and benefits, but when you consider that the average unionized SEPTA worker is already making $52,000 a year, you have to wonder why.
By the way, the median salary in the city of Philadelphia is only $36,646. So most transit workers are making significantly more money than the people riding on the buses/trains/subways with them.
Mix in the fact that we're in the middle of a recession, and that unemployment in Philadelphia recently hit 11 percent, and its pretty hard to believe that anyone can support this strike or the union that organized it.
--
SEPTA (SouthEast Pennsylvania Transit Authority) recently went on strike (although they kindly waited until after the World Series, despite their initial threats). The union is demanding an increase in wages and benefits, but when you consider that the average unionized SEPTA worker is already making $52,000 a year, you have to wonder why.
By the way, the median salary in the city of Philadelphia is only $36,646. So most transit workers are making significantly more money than the people riding on the buses/trains/subways with them.
Mix in the fact that we're in the middle of a recession, and that unemployment in Philadelphia recently hit 11 percent, and its pretty hard to believe that anyone can support this strike or the union that organized it.
--
Labels:
Philadelphia,
public transportation,
SEPTA,
strike,
unions
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The More You Know....
...the less attractive government-run health care becomes.
At least that seems to be the message from a recent Gallup poll asking people whether they believe providing health insurance is the responsibility of the federal government or not. Gallup has been polling this question since 2001, and for the first time ever the number of people opposed to government health insurance has surpassed the number in favor of it (50%-47%).
As recently as 2006, 69 percent of Americans felt that it was the government's responsibility to provide health coverage; last year that number fell to 54 percent, the previous low.
So why the dramatic shift?
"Certainly the federal government's role in the nation's health care system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have health care coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government."
Gallup concludes:
"The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed health care debate since President Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the health care system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have health care coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in health care could or should be this broad."
I believe it was Socrates who said the truth can only be discovered through use of the dialectic. In other words, you don't know what you believe until you challenge it with an argument of some kind. It seems that the debates over health care are having one positive effect: convincing more people that government health care is a bad idea.
--
At least that seems to be the message from a recent Gallup poll asking people whether they believe providing health insurance is the responsibility of the federal government or not. Gallup has been polling this question since 2001, and for the first time ever the number of people opposed to government health insurance has surpassed the number in favor of it (50%-47%).
As recently as 2006, 69 percent of Americans felt that it was the government's responsibility to provide health coverage; last year that number fell to 54 percent, the previous low.
So why the dramatic shift?
"Certainly the federal government's role in the nation's health care system has been widely and vigorously debated over the last several months, including much focus on the "public option." These data suggest that one result of the debate has been a net decrease in Americans' agreement that ensuring all Americans have health care coverage is an appropriate role for the federal government."
Gallup concludes:
"The current poll results indicate that, with the renewed health care debate since President Obama took office, Americans have become less convinced that it is an appropriate goal for the federal government to take on the responsibility of ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage. It is possible that the current debate has increased the average American's awareness as to the nuances of the various roles the government could play in the health care system, helping make the generic "make sure all Americans have health care coverage" sound less appealing. Plus, the current debate may have produced more skepticism among Americans that the government's role in health care could or should be this broad."
I believe it was Socrates who said the truth can only be discovered through use of the dialectic. In other words, you don't know what you believe until you challenge it with an argument of some kind. It seems that the debates over health care are having one positive effect: convincing more people that government health care is a bad idea.
--
Monday, November 16, 2009
Where Is The Money Going?
According to ABCNews.com, the Federal Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in stimulus money to fund projects that do not exist.
The website that has been set up to monitor the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, includes fraudulent listings of projects that do not exist in locations that do not exist either, such as the $760,000 that have been spent in to save 30 jobs in Arizona's 9th congressional district. The problem: Arizona has only eight congressional districts.
Sure, one mistake could be a simple typo, but how do you explain all the rest of these:
"There's no 86th congressional district in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there....
....In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in non-existent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands....
....$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district."
To make it all even more ironic, the banner at the top of the Recovery.gov site reads, "Recovery.gov is the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse" (emphasis mine).
But all this still begs the question: what happened to the money that was supposedly spent on those non-existent projects around the country? Have millions of dollars apparently just disappeared, or is the administration simply lying about the creation of jobs to make themselves look better? Either way, it makes me uncomfortable.
If you want to grab your fair share of the stimulus money (and why wouldn't you?) for no good reason at all, head over to Reason.com and have some fun with their Personal Stimulus Generator.
--
The website that has been set up to monitor the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, includes fraudulent listings of projects that do not exist in locations that do not exist either, such as the $760,000 that have been spent in to save 30 jobs in Arizona's 9th congressional district. The problem: Arizona has only eight congressional districts.
Sure, one mistake could be a simple typo, but how do you explain all the rest of these:
"There's no 86th congressional district in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there....
....In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in non-existent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands....
....$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district."
To make it all even more ironic, the banner at the top of the Recovery.gov site reads, "Recovery.gov is the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse" (emphasis mine).
But all this still begs the question: what happened to the money that was supposedly spent on those non-existent projects around the country? Have millions of dollars apparently just disappeared, or is the administration simply lying about the creation of jobs to make themselves look better? Either way, it makes me uncomfortable.
If you want to grab your fair share of the stimulus money (and why wouldn't you?) for no good reason at all, head over to Reason.com and have some fun with their Personal Stimulus Generator.
--
Labels:
ABC News,
government fraud,
Obama,
Recovery.gov,
Stimulus Package
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Committee Guts Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" Bill
Ron Paul's latest attempt to bring some kind of sanity to Washington has been dealt a serious blow by the House Financial Services Committee, which "gutted" his bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, was introduced in February and has accumulated 311 co-sponsors. However, Rep. Paul (R-TX) maintains that several important elements of the bill have been removed by the committee during hearings on the bill held in September.
Paul says the changes have removed provisions that closed loopholes, such as the protection from audits of transactions with other nations' central banks. And he's pointing the finger at the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's panel on domestic monetary policy, Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC).
And Watt (surprise, surprise) has gained more than a little bit from the banking and financial sector during his time in office. In 2008, when he won election for a ninth term, the largest percentage of his campaign contributions (35%, or $217,000) came from connections to financial, real estate, and insurance industries. According to OpenSecrets.org, Bank of America (headquartered in Charlotte, a part of Watt's district, which is one of the most gerrymandered in the country) was the largest single contributor to Watt's 2008 campaign.
On the plus side, Rep. Paul says he will try to restore the provisions that have been cut from the bill with an amendment when the bill reaches the floor. With all those co-sponsors, the bill should be easily passed, but the question remains about how effective the bill will be.
HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, was introduced in February and has accumulated 311 co-sponsors. However, Rep. Paul (R-TX) maintains that several important elements of the bill have been removed by the committee during hearings on the bill held in September.
Paul says the changes have removed provisions that closed loopholes, such as the protection from audits of transactions with other nations' central banks. And he's pointing the finger at the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's panel on domestic monetary policy, Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC).
And Watt (surprise, surprise) has gained more than a little bit from the banking and financial sector during his time in office. In 2008, when he won election for a ninth term, the largest percentage of his campaign contributions (35%, or $217,000) came from connections to financial, real estate, and insurance industries. According to OpenSecrets.org, Bank of America (headquartered in Charlotte, a part of Watt's district, which is one of the most gerrymandered in the country) was the largest single contributor to Watt's 2008 campaign.
On the plus side, Rep. Paul says he will try to restore the provisions that have been cut from the bill with an amendment when the bill reaches the floor. With all those co-sponsors, the bill should be easily passed, but the question remains about how effective the bill will be.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Happy Ayn Rand Week - Continued
As I mentioned on Monday, there are two new biographies about Ayn Rand that have been published within the past month.
Sam Anderson, of the New York Times, reviews Ayn Rand and the World She Made (by Anne Heller), and the review is worth reading simply for the following description of the subject:
"Few fellow creatures have had a more intensely odd personal flavor; her temperament could have neutered an ox at 40 paces."
Anderson takes plenty of opportunities to criticize Rand during the review, but ultimately concludes on a positive note:
"Overall, though, Heller does a remarkable job with a subject who was almost cripplingly complex—a real woman starring in her own propaganda film about a propagandist whose propaganda eventually takes over the world."
Then, there is Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (By Jennifer Burns, of the University of Virginia), which rolls in at only 384 pages, and seems to have been generally reviewed less favorably. Brian Doherty, of the Washington Times, questions the connection between Rand and the American right-wing in his review of the book:
"Rand undoubtedly was a ferocious defender of free markets and a great lover of America because she saw it as the closest political embodiment of her values. But she was never, despite Ms. Burns' title connecting her goddesshood and the American right, any special darling of modern conservatives.... ...The reader of Ms. Burns' book will get a proper sense of where Rand really stands in American ideological history. Rand (though she herself despised the word and movement for peculiar reasons of her own) was not a member in good standing of the American right; she was far more a goddess of American libertarianism, that radical philosophy of consistent anti-statism and individualism unconnected to conservative traditionalism."
Still, Doherty is mostly positive, saying that Rand still has important lessons to teach about the implications of big government.
And here's Burns herself in an interview with Reason TV, where she discusses her book, Rand's influence on conservatives and libertarians, and why Rand is important today.
--
Sam Anderson, of the New York Times, reviews Ayn Rand and the World She Made (by Anne Heller), and the review is worth reading simply for the following description of the subject:
"Few fellow creatures have had a more intensely odd personal flavor; her temperament could have neutered an ox at 40 paces."
Anderson takes plenty of opportunities to criticize Rand during the review, but ultimately concludes on a positive note:
"Overall, though, Heller does a remarkable job with a subject who was almost cripplingly complex—a real woman starring in her own propaganda film about a propagandist whose propaganda eventually takes over the world."
Then, there is Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (By Jennifer Burns, of the University of Virginia), which rolls in at only 384 pages, and seems to have been generally reviewed less favorably. Brian Doherty, of the Washington Times, questions the connection between Rand and the American right-wing in his review of the book:
"Rand undoubtedly was a ferocious defender of free markets and a great lover of America because she saw it as the closest political embodiment of her values. But she was never, despite Ms. Burns' title connecting her goddesshood and the American right, any special darling of modern conservatives.... ...The reader of Ms. Burns' book will get a proper sense of where Rand really stands in American ideological history. Rand (though she herself despised the word and movement for peculiar reasons of her own) was not a member in good standing of the American right; she was far more a goddess of American libertarianism, that radical philosophy of consistent anti-statism and individualism unconnected to conservative traditionalism."
Still, Doherty is mostly positive, saying that Rand still has important lessons to teach about the implications of big government.
And here's Burns herself in an interview with Reason TV, where she discusses her book, Rand's influence on conservatives and libertarians, and why Rand is important today.
--
Intellectual Carnage: John Boehner and Rachel Maddow
Honestly, this is just sad.
On Thursday, during a rally on the steps of the Capital on to oppose health care reform, John Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, decided to quote from his pocket Constitution. The only problem is that the words he actually spoke ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...") are actually from the Declaration of Independence.
But wait, it gets better.
That night, Rachel Maddow (MSNBC's most female liberal commentator) decided to correct the Representative. In her "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you" voice, she pointed out that the Constitution doesn't have a Preamble.
That, of course, is completely incorrect.
Take a look at the intellectual carnage for yourself:
I wish that our elected leaders, as well as the people that are paid to criticize them, would actually take a look at our founding documents once in while. I'm not asking you to write an essay on the importance of the Federalist Papers, or even the Articles of Confederation. Just please understand the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, or do not speak in front of a camera.
--
On Thursday, during a rally on the steps of the Capital on to oppose health care reform, John Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority Leader, decided to quote from his pocket Constitution. The only problem is that the words he actually spoke ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...") are actually from the Declaration of Independence.
But wait, it gets better.
That night, Rachel Maddow (MSNBC's most female liberal commentator) decided to correct the Representative. In her "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you" voice, she pointed out that the Constitution doesn't have a Preamble.
That, of course, is completely incorrect.
Take a look at the intellectual carnage for yourself:
I wish that our elected leaders, as well as the people that are paid to criticize them, would actually take a look at our founding documents once in while. I'm not asking you to write an essay on the importance of the Federalist Papers, or even the Articles of Confederation. Just please understand the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration, or do not speak in front of a camera.
--
We Rule This Place
This is so cool that I'm just going to re-post it in its entirety. From The New Scientist (via Chart Porn, via Sociological Images, via Megan), these maps show the human colonization of the Earth. Also, it seems appropriate to post this during "Rand week".
The first one shows every road in the world.
The next one shows all the railroads in the world:
Nice work, humanity.
Finally, this map shows the amount of time it would take for you to reach any major city (50,000 people or more) from a given location on the planet. Since the key is really small, here's the summery: white means less than an hour, yellow means 2-3 hours, orange means about six hours, red means about 24 hours, and black means a few days. Also, the blue lines are shipping lanes, so this could be useful if you're ever ship wrecked.
And in case you're wondering, the most remote place on Earth is the Tibetan Plateau, where it can take three weeks to reach a city of 50,000 people. The real kicker: only one of those days is spent in a car, while the other 20 are on foot.
--
The first one shows every road in the world.
The next one shows all the railroads in the world:
Nice work, humanity.
Finally, this map shows the amount of time it would take for you to reach any major city (50,000 people or more) from a given location on the planet. Since the key is really small, here's the summery: white means less than an hour, yellow means 2-3 hours, orange means about six hours, red means about 24 hours, and black means a few days. Also, the blue lines are shipping lanes, so this could be useful if you're ever ship wrecked.
And in case you're wondering, the most remote place on Earth is the Tibetan Plateau, where it can take three weeks to reach a city of 50,000 people. The real kicker: only one of those days is spent in a car, while the other 20 are on foot.
--
Labels:
Chart Porn,
charts,
railroads,
roads,
Sociological Images,
The New Scientist
Monday, November 2, 2009
Happy Ayn Rand Week
All this week, the Reason Foundation is celebrating the "freedom and ideas of Ayn Rand", so I thought I'd celebrate a little too. I'm debating between either building a railroad in my backyard or writing a philosophical treatise, recording it, and posting it on YouTube (that's the modern equivalent of a radio broadcast, right?).
Either way, lets get the week started with Nick Gillespie, who takes a look at the enduring power of Rand, who has been referenced on everything from Mad Men to The Simpsons.
Gillespie also penned this article that examines Rand's life, her work, and the two new biographies that have been written about her.
If you still want more about Rand, from Gillespie, he wrote a similar story more than four years ago about the continued influence of Rand in American culture and politics.
Or, if you're tired of being too serious about Rand, you can check out this entertaining flow-chart (and how I love flow-charts) that serves as an easy how-to guide to become a Randian hero. The rest of the page is pretty entertaining too.
And by the way, Ayn rhymes with pine.
--
Either way, lets get the week started with Nick Gillespie, who takes a look at the enduring power of Rand, who has been referenced on everything from Mad Men to The Simpsons.
Gillespie also penned this article that examines Rand's life, her work, and the two new biographies that have been written about her.
If you still want more about Rand, from Gillespie, he wrote a similar story more than four years ago about the continued influence of Rand in American culture and politics.
Or, if you're tired of being too serious about Rand, you can check out this entertaining flow-chart (and how I love flow-charts) that serves as an easy how-to guide to become a Randian hero. The rest of the page is pretty entertaining too.
And by the way, Ayn rhymes with pine.
--
Polishing the Brass on the Titanic (Continued)
On Thursday, I wrote about the downward plunge of newspaper circulation in the U.S. based on the recent numbers released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The average decline in circulation for daily weekday papers was 10.6 percent (or about 30 million copies), based on numbers from the past six months compared to the same six months in 2008.
But, before we freak out any more about the end of American newspapers as a whole, Daniel Gross of Slate has a word of advice: Chillax. (Really, that's exactly what he says in the article.)
Here's why he thinks things aren't as bad as they might seem:
"First of all, there's nothing ipso facto shocking about a decline in patronage of 10 percent in six months. Many political blogs and cable news shows have seen their audiences fall by much more than 10 percent since the feverish fall of 2008. And advertising at plenty of online publications has fallen by a similar amount. In case anybody has forgotten, we've had a deep, long recession, a huge spike in unemployment, and a credit crunch. Consumers have cut back sharply on all sorts of expenditures....
...Many other components of consumer discretionary spending—hotels, restaurants, air travel—have fallen off significantly. Do we draw a line from trends over the last few years and declare that in 15 years there will be only a handful of hotels?"
Certainly the election last fall drove circulation numbers higher than they would have been, resulting in a more dramatic falloff in the time since, but that doesn't change the fact that the decline exists. And if it continues to slide, even at a slower pace, that's bad news, right?
Wrong, says Gross, because falling circulation does not necessarily mean falling revenue. Many papers have increased prices at the newsstand and for home delivery. So, while the New York Times has seen a 7.3 percent drop in circulation, they have also announced that revenues are actually UP 6.7 percent in the third quarter. At the same time, income from circulation surpassed income from advertisements for the first time, ever.
Of course the question is whether the higher costs can balance out the losses that are being felt in advertising (traditionally the way newspapers made their money), while at the same time not driving away so many customers that even higher prices are forced upon those that remain. It does not sound like a good long-term plan, but at least there might be hope.
--
But, before we freak out any more about the end of American newspapers as a whole, Daniel Gross of Slate has a word of advice: Chillax. (Really, that's exactly what he says in the article.)
Here's why he thinks things aren't as bad as they might seem:
"First of all, there's nothing ipso facto shocking about a decline in patronage of 10 percent in six months. Many political blogs and cable news shows have seen their audiences fall by much more than 10 percent since the feverish fall of 2008. And advertising at plenty of online publications has fallen by a similar amount. In case anybody has forgotten, we've had a deep, long recession, a huge spike in unemployment, and a credit crunch. Consumers have cut back sharply on all sorts of expenditures....
...Many other components of consumer discretionary spending—hotels, restaurants, air travel—have fallen off significantly. Do we draw a line from trends over the last few years and declare that in 15 years there will be only a handful of hotels?"
Certainly the election last fall drove circulation numbers higher than they would have been, resulting in a more dramatic falloff in the time since, but that doesn't change the fact that the decline exists. And if it continues to slide, even at a slower pace, that's bad news, right?
Wrong, says Gross, because falling circulation does not necessarily mean falling revenue. Many papers have increased prices at the newsstand and for home delivery. So, while the New York Times has seen a 7.3 percent drop in circulation, they have also announced that revenues are actually UP 6.7 percent in the third quarter. At the same time, income from circulation surpassed income from advertisements for the first time, ever.
Of course the question is whether the higher costs can balance out the losses that are being felt in advertising (traditionally the way newspapers made their money), while at the same time not driving away so many customers that even higher prices are forced upon those that remain. It does not sound like a good long-term plan, but at least there might be hope.
--
Labels:
Daniel Gross,
New York Times,
newspaper circulation,
newspapers,
Slate
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Halloween, Obama-style
I wonder how much money the White House Halloween Party cost? According to the AP, the event included "an odd cast of figures [wondering] around the North Lawn, including skeletons playing musical instruments, walking trees, and "Star Wars" characters. The night's arrangements took a month or two to prepare, the White House said."
Not only that, but I'm sure the 200 kids (and who knows how many parents) that attended were required to go through a full security screen when they arrived. I just don't see the White House allowing that many people to show up, in costume no less, spontaneously at the front door. So how much did all that cost?
I just really don't see how an event like this is even necessary. In a few years, is Obama going to stand up at a debate and say, "Maybe I didn't accomplish much, politically, while I was in office. But you have to admit, I threw better Halloween parties than McCain would have."
Not only that, but I'm sure the 200 kids (and who knows how many parents) that attended were required to go through a full security screen when they arrived. I just don't see the White House allowing that many people to show up, in costume no less, spontaneously at the front door. So how much did all that cost?
I just really don't see how an event like this is even necessary. In a few years, is Obama going to stand up at a debate and say, "Maybe I didn't accomplish much, politically, while I was in office. But you have to admit, I threw better Halloween parties than McCain would have."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)